7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
1/46
Meddle Not With Them That Are Given to Change:
Innovation as Evil
Benot Godin
385 rue Sherbrooke EstMontreal, Quebec
Canada H2X [emailprotected]
Project on the Intellectual History of Innovation
Working Paper No. 6
2010
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
2/46
2
Working Papers
1. B. Godin,Innovation: the History of a Category.
2. B. Godin, In the Shadow of Schumpeter: W. Rupert Maclaurinand the Study of Technological
Innovation.
3. B. Godin, The Linear Model of Innovation (II): MauriceHolland and the Research Cycle.4. B. Godin,National InnovationSystem (II): Industrialists and the Origins of an Idea.
5. B. Godin,Innovation without the Word: William F. OgburnsContribution to Technological Innovation
Studies.
Project on the Intellectual History of Innovation
385 rue Sherbrooke Est, Montreal, Canada, H2X 1E3
Telephone: (514) 499-4074 Facsimile: (514) 499-4065
www.csiic.ca
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
3/46
3
Abstract
Innovation has become a central value of modern society. It hasnot always been so. As a
matter of fact, innovation had a pejorative connotation forcenturies. This paper looks at one
episode of the contested use of the category innovation. Itdocuments the first controversyon innovation in the seventeenthcentury. Starting in the mid-1620s, Henry Burton, a
Church of England minister and Puritan, accused the bishops ofinnovating in matters of
Church doctrine and discipline, contrary to His Majestysinstructions. In 1636, Burton
published two of his sermons in a polemical form and was broughtbefore the Court. His
opponents produced answers accusing Burton himself ofinnovating. Burton had his ears
cut and was sentenced to imprisonment.
The study of this controversy teaches us what innovation meantto contemporaries, the
values it embedded, what uses were made of the category and whatthe context was from
which Western representations of innovation emerged. One had towait until the second half
of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century for morepositive evaluations of
innovation. The study of the controversy teaches us about boththe similarities and the
differences in representations of innovation between the twoperiods.
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
4/46
4
The opinion of some private man prove not in my poore Logickan
Innovation (). To make an innovation (), there must be anunanimous
and general concurrence of minds and men, to let on foote thenew and
desert the old; not the particular fancie of one private man (P.Heylin, A
brief and moderate answer to the seditious and scandalousChallenge ofH. Burton, 1637, p. 124).
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
5/46
5
Meddle Not With Them That Are Given to Change:
Innovation as Evil1
Introduction
In 1548, Edward VI, King of England (1547-53), issued AProclamation against Those
that Doeth Innovate. The proclamation placed innovation incontext, constituted an
admonition not to innovate and imposed punishments onoffenders:
Considereing nothing so muche, to tende to the disquieting ofhis realme, as diversitie of
opinions, and varietie of Rites and Ceremonies, concerningReligion and worshippyng of
almightie God (); [considering] certain private Curates,Preachers, and other laye men,
contrary to their bounden duties of obedience, both rashelyattempte of their owne and
singulet witte and mynde, in some Parishe Churches not onely topersuage the people, from
the olde and customed Rites and Ceremonies, but also bryngeth innewe and strange orders
() according to their fantasies () is an evident token of prideand arrogance, so it
tendeth bothe to confusion and disorder (): Wherefore hisMajestie straightly chargeth
and commandeth, than no maner persone, of what estate, order, ordegree soever he be, of
his private mynde, will or phantasie, do omitte, leave doune,change, alter or innovate any
order, Rite or Ceremonie, commonly used and frequented in theChurch of Englande ().
Whosoever shall offende, contrary to this Proclamation, shallincure his highness
indignation, and suffer imprisonment, and other grievouspunishementes.
The proclamation was followed the following year by the Book ofCommon Prayer
(1549), which established the provision of a public liturgywhich could teach the new
doctrine of English Protestantism. The preface, written byArchbishop Thomas Cranmer,
deplored that the whole Bible was not read once every year inthe church service because
the order of the ancient Fathers hath been so altered, brokenand neglected by planting in
uncertain stories and legends, with multitude of responds,verses, vain repetitions,
1 Special thanks Markku Peltonen for excellent and detailedcomments on a previous draft of this paper.
Thanks also to the participants to a workshop on The Rhetoric ofInnovation in Contemporary Society,
University of Helsinki, 7-8 February 2010, and a seminar onPublic Understanding of Science, London
School of Economics, 11 February 2010. Finally, let me mentionseveral colleagues who have read the
paper and have offered most relevant suggestions: GeraldBarnett, Denise Lemieux, Pierre Lucier and
Christine Macleod.
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
6/46
6
commemorations and synodals. Here is set forth, Cranmer wrote,an order cut off of
anthems, responds, invitatories and such like things as didbreak the continual course of
the reading of the Scripture. The preface contained one morerationale on the diversity
and multitude of practices in the countrys church service andceremonies and opposed
the folly and innovations and new-fangledness of some men.Although the keeping
or omitting of a ceremony, in itself considered, is but a smallthing, yet the willful and
contemptuous transgression and breaking of a common order anddiscipline is no small
offence before God. The new order and discipline were enforcedwith the Act of
Uniformity (1549) which established the First Prayer Book as theonly legal form of
worship. The Kings Majesty () hath divers times essayed to stayinnovations or new
rites () yet hath not had good success. The act establisheduniform rite and order in
prayer (Book of Common Prayer) and ceremonies and punishments tooffenders (both
ministers and ordinary people) against the rules. 2
Negative thoughts on innovation would reach their climax inmid-seventeenth century
England. By the early 1600s Protestantism defined the Englishidentity although
Catholics denied this. However, according to some, there stillwas no purity of
Protestantism. The idea that innovation in doctrine, disciplineand prayer constitutes
superstition and idolatry was shared by many English divinesfrom the Reformation
onward. Innovation came to share a place with heresy in thevocabulary of orthodoxy.
Pejorative representations of innovation (any kind ofinnovation) would remain the rule
until the second half of the nineteenth century and earlytwentieth century.
Puritans, among others, took the kings injunctions seriously.Henry Burton, an English
minister, used the kings declarations to attack the churchhierarchy. We are
professedly, wrote Burton, against all those usurpations andinnovations, which the
Prelates of later dayes have haled in by the head and shoulders,being besides and against
the Law and the Land, and much more against the Law of God(Burton, 1636b: 111). On
November 5, 1636 Burton preached two sermons attacking thebishops for introducing
2 Both the 1549 Act and the preface to the Prayer Book arereproduced in Bray (1994: 266-76). Most other
ancient documents used in this paper are original editions.
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
7/46
7
innovations into the Church of England regarding doctrine,discipline and worship. He
launched a controversy on innovation, indeed the first such.3
This paper documents the controversy (1636-41). Seventeenthcentury England was a
period of change in religion despite many decades of effort toestablish a new orthodoxy
(Protestantism). The Reformation was still in the making.Tensions, debates and war
characterized the period. The conflicts led to the use ofinnovation as a category for the
unorthodox, deviants, and transgressors of norms or heretics.Burton accused no less a
personage than the Archbishop of Canterbury William Laud ofinnovating in matters of
doctrine and discipline, contrary to the established rule. Heused the category
innovation as a polemical weapon against his enemies. Hisopponents produced (just as
polemical) answers to Burtons charges, using their arguments tocall for censure by the
High Commission, which led to Burtons imprisonment. Among theseopponents were
Peter Heylin and Christopher Dow, two Laudian devotees.
The first part of this paper discusses innovation according tothis period of history, as
discussed by Henry Burton. 4 It documents the innovations Burtonaccused the bishops of
grouped under eight headings. The second part of the paper partanalyzes what innovation
meant to Burton and discusses why Burton stressed a use of thecategory different from
the dominant one. The third part of the paper documents therhetoric used by Burtons
opponents to bring him before the court. The replies wereexactly the opposite of
Burtons arguments, and add up to accusing him of being theinnovator, not they. The last
part of the paper examines what innovation meant to hiscontemporaries and explains
why it had a pejorative connotation.
No doubt some readers will be put off by the extensive use ofcited passages from
original sources, particularly when the texts are written inearly modern English, which I
3 In the early 1600s, a controversy arose on abuses in theChurch according to the bishops (The Humble
Petition, 1603). King James rapidly settled the controversy:organizing a conference and issuing a
Proclamation which minimized the innovations (James, 1603;Barlow, 1604).4 Two phamphleteers and sympathizers with Burtonsviews that I have not included here are John
Bastwick and William Prynne. To a certain extent, the argumentsused are the same as Burtons. For
example, Prynne produced a pamphlet (News from Ipswich) whichwas often falsely attributed to Burton atthe time (Prynne, 1636).The latter document is the only one which I have used here.
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
8/46
8
have chosen to leave in the original. My purpose is to give thereaders a sense of the
vocabulary used and the rhetoric developed for talking aboutinnovation. One of my
theses being that innovation during this controversy wasessentially polemical, I have
deemed it necessary to let the reader experience the tone of thepolemic. Too often
historical work stops after summarizing the arguments of thetime, thus leaving the reader
with an appetite for a more detailed analysis. The intellectualhistory of concepts is that
of words, their meaning and their uses. Certainly, such ahistory deals with the context
and the values in which words are embedded and which determinemeanings and uses. I
have tried to do this here. However, I believe that one cannotwrite the history of
concepts if he does not, to a certain extent, let the actorsspeak for themselves. The reader
may have a look at the Appendix before reading this paper. Hewill get a preliminary idea
of Burtons language and the range and depth of how innovation isconnected to
established social values.
Burtons Innovations
The complaints against doctrinal innovations emerged in the1590s and reached a climax
in the 1630s. The 1590s were marked by a sense of change, decayand ferment in English
religious affairs (Milton, 1995: 11). As Anthony Milton put it,the Reformation retained a
structure of worship and administration which had not broken asdecisively with the
Roman past as had been the case in other Protestant countries.Unsettled issues were
therefore a subject for constant reinterpretation andrecriminations. The accusation of
popery (a return to Romes doctrine) characterizes the period.Following Peter Lake,
Milton has suggested that many of the religious controversies ofthe period relied on the
manipulation and assimilation of the opponents position into ananti-type of either anti-
popery or Puritanism (Milton, 1995: 4; Lake, 1989). To manydivines, like the moderate
Puritan Andrew Willet in the late sixteenth century, it was theduty of all the churches of
England to unite against a common enemy the Church of Rome(rather than against
domestic enemies whom they called puritans). Opposition to Rome(anti-popery) served
several purposes: manifesting ones commitment to true religion,preventing conversions
to Rome and endearing puritans to the establishment.
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
9/46
9
According to Milton, in order to understand the controversies ofthe period we must first
understand how contemporaries understood orthodoxy in the firstplace and under what
circ*mstances they were likely to believed they were threatenedby their opponents
heterodoxy (Milton, 1995: 4). The anti-papal religiouscontroversy prompted the
systematic formulation of differences. There was a broadspectrum of different religious
views, but they were portrayed and understood in a dualisticterminology. Anti-popery
was a polemical tactic aimed at undermining the position of arival faction in the
struggle for power and influence (Milton, 1995: 55), a channelthrough which the
churchs own internal conflicts found expression (Milton, 1995:92). In this context, any
contrary idea to the established doctrine (the jure divinotheory of the government of
bishops prelates rule the church by divine authority and right ,predestination,
justification, salvation) like those of conformist RichardHooker or Archbishop Richard
Bancroft, easily led to accusations of popery and novelty.
Then, in the 1620s, a more skeptical assessment emerged.Anti-popery might be
undermining the Church of England itself. It might be apotential front for seditious
activity and encourage people to uncover popery within theEnglish Church. As a matter
of fact, anti-popery was a label extended to any and allopponents; it conflated an
opponents position with that of Rome. Almost all churchmenendured accusations of
anti-popery at one time or another. As a reaction, from KingJames I (1603-25) onward,
fear of popery thus began to shift to more toleration. The muchcriticized William Laud
(1573-1645), Archbishop of Canterbury (1633-45) was a purerepresentative of this view
of negative popery. He invoked an anti-Romanist oppositionagainst which he defined
himself, because anti-popery threaten to frustrate his effortsto revive and re-establish old
doctrines as well as neglected and more reverent forms ofworship and ceremonies. As a
matter of fact, Laud was more preoccupied with the dangers ofprofanity and sacrilege
than with anti-popery. His campaign against anti-popery wasaimed at avoiding offending
potential converts, above all the aristocracy and gentry. Theagenda of Laud and the
Laudians combined Arminian views on salvation by works withstrict uniformity in
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
10/46
10
worship and an increased emphasis on ceremony and the importanceof episcopacy.5
In
the light of this agenda, the charge of popery was soon raisedagainst Laud himself and
his reforms. Laud was accused of reintroducing popery, namely ofinnovation.
It is here that Henry Burton (1578-1648) enters the story andthat my small contribution
to the study of the period is situated. From 1612 onward, Burtonwas Clerk of the Closet
to young Prince Charles. When the Prince became King in 1625,Burton became
concerned that the new King was showing too much favor towardCatholic sympathizers
(Auchter, 2001). The King dismissed Burton, who became ministerat Saint Matthew
where he continued attacking the church hierarchy with sermonsand pamphlets,
particularly against Laud. In 1637, he was arrested and broughtbefore the Star Chamber
to explain himself, together with two other puritans andpamphleters (William Prynne
and John Bastwick). Burtons sermons were said to containseditious and factious
passages. These scandalous and seditious pamphlets, statedHeylin, are now growne
so rise, that every day doth produce new Monsters; there beingmore of them divulged at
this present time, then any former age can speak of (Heylin,1637: 191). It hath been
found at other times as necessary, that the tongue whichspeaketh proud words be cut off
for ever (Heylin, 1637: 192).
The innovation controversy was launched in 1636 when Burtonproduced a pamphletFor
God and the King, the sum (with additions and enlargements) oftwo sermons preached
on November 5 to teach my people obedience to both God and theKing in these times
of disobedience and of innovations tending to reduce us to thatReligion of Rome.
How frequentlie and Solemlie wrote Burton, hath your Majestiemade most Sacred
Protestations to all Your loving Subjects, that you would neversuffer the least innovation
to creep unto Your Kingdome. But innovations continued,according to Burton. All
which well considered, how audacious, yea how impious are ourInnovatours, how
feareless of Your Majestie, how regardless of Your Royall Honor,that in their
innovations made such havocke, commit such outrages. Burtonasked the King to stop
the course of all innovators.
5 For an excellent analysis on the logic of laudianism, see Lake(1992; 1993).
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
11/46
11
For God and the Kingis based on Proverb 24, 21:6My Sonne, fearethou the Lord, and
the King, and meddle not with them that are given to change. Fortheir calamity shall rise
suddenly; and who knoweth the ruine of them both? Burtons textproceeded in two steps.
In the first half of the pamphlet, Burton conducted anexegetical analysis of the proverb.
In the second part, he launched accusations against the churchhierarchy.
To Burton, the proverb is a threefold lesson. First, it is anexhortation: the object is fear of
both God and the king. The religious and the civil fear differin kind, yet in resemblance
and similitude they are not unlike (Burton, 1636b: 6). Fear ofthe Lord is obedience to
God. It is a duty which God requireth of his children (Burton,1636b: 12). We are
bound to perform all obedience to God (...). Else it isrebellion (...), a mass of Idolatry
and Superstitution, Will-Worship of mans invention (Burton,1636b: 14). Fear of the
king is not a fear with terror but a natural affection (Burton,1636b: 42), namely the
duties due from Subjects to their King (Burton, 1636b: 36). Itmeans honoring the king
as with all superiors (parents, masters, princes), yea greaterlove than natural Children
beare unto their Parents, namely as [Subjects] are members ofthe great politicke body
(Burton, 1636b: 43).
Second, the proverb is an admonition. It admonishes one not tobecome involve with
innovators in matters of religion or government, that is, haveno fellowship, side not,
countenance not, approve not, applaud not such men in their evilwayes (Burton, 1636b:
6). To Burton, men given to change are always notoriousdetractors, and sycophants,
derogating from those things, which they goe about to innovateor abrogate, that so they
may establish their owne novelties, whither in Church, or State,or both (Burton, 1636b:
8).
See AlsoFrom The Parking Lot lyricsXwaynecoltX's game Reviews on NewgroundsFROM STUPID in a sentence | Sentences WordTool-- WE ARE GRIEVED AT THE MISREPRESENTATION OF QUEEN VICTORIA'S GOVERNANCE BY #231 - YOUTH UNREST IN HONG KONG AND TAIWAN'S #237Burton suggests five reasons not to meddle with innovators. Thefirst is guilt by
association: if we bee silent and doe not detect them, norlabour to defeate them (...) we
6 The book of Proverbs is a collection of ancient proverbs (orsayings or adages), of which many existed
in the Near East at the time. The collection is attributed toSolomon, Israels greatest king.
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
12/46
12
shall be found guilty and so pertake of the like punishment(Burton, 1636b: 93). The
second reason is what Burton refers to as dangers: politicalinnovation leads to Tyrany
(Burton, 1636b: 93) and religious innovation to ruin, troublesand discontent in the State
(Burton, 1636b: 95). Here Burton uses AristotlesPolitics (BookV, viii) (notRepublic as
he erroneously suggests) in which the Greek author compareschanges in a State, which
at first seeme but small and insensible, to the expenses of ahouse, and the wasting of a
mansubstance by little and little, which in a short timeconsumes all (Burton, 1636b: 93-
94). This has been a much repeated argument against innovationover the centuries, one
to which we will return below. A third reason for not meddlingwith innovators is that
they turn things upside down (Burton, 1636b: 96): underminingand overthrowing the
State of Church and Common weale, and mingle heaven and earthtogether (Burton,
1636b: 99 164). Burtons fourth reason continues in the samevein: innovation may set
up Antichrists throne againe (...), Popery piety, andSuperstition holiness (Burton,
1636b: 99). Burton ends his list of reasons not to meddle withinnovators by accusing the
latter of being enemies to the king. As examples, Burtondiscusses the gunpowder plot
(the attempted assassination of King James on November 5, 1605).What tongue can tell
or what heart conceive, Burton asks, the miserable changes, thatmust have ensued,
upon that desperate designe, if it had beene effected (Burton,1636b: 100). Burton also
looks at the history of the church and argues that past changesand innovations he cites
Virgils De Inventoribus Rerum with regard to popes inventionsled to the infection
of superstition and idolatry: ceremonies, tables, altars, robesand bowing. According to
Burton, these kinds of innovation had not stopped. On thecontrary, the spirit of Rome
continues corrupting the worship of God, troubling the peace ofthe church, captivating
mans consciences with their humane invention, exercising tyrannyand seeking the ruin
of Christs kingdom (Burton, 1636b: 109).
Finally, according to Burtons exegesis, the proverb offered areason for admonition.
Burton had already dealt with the matter above. Briefly stated,calamity shall rise above
[the innovators], and bring them to ruine (Burton, 1636b: 8). ToBurton, the instruction
arising from this text is simple: every one ought so to addresshimself to the hearing of
the Word of God (Burton, 1636b: 9).
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
13/46
13
Then, Burton devotes the rest of his text to discussinginnovations under eight headings
(Table 1) (Burton, 1636b: 111-58). It is worth looking at theinnovations one by one, for
it gives a sense of what innovation is according to Burton. Aswill become evident in the
following pages, popery is Burtons main argument againstinnovation.
Table 1.
Burtons Innovations
Innovation in Doctrine
Innovation in Discipline
Innovation in the Worship of God
Innovation in the Civil Government
Innovation in Altering of Books
Innovation in the Means of Knowledge
Innovation in the Rules of Manners
Innovation in the Rule of Faith
Innovation in doctrine was a much debated topic in the 1630s.Burton discusses several
books published by the prelates and which, according to hisview, put several elements of
the Protestant doctrine into question as regards, for example,transubstantiation and the
Sabbath (more on the latter below). He condemns, and here hisopponents would reply
that it is only a matter of time and circ*mstances, theinhibiting of young Ministers to
preach of the Doctrines of Election and Predestination (Burton,1636b: 114).7
He also
argues against the prohibition that Students should not read themodern learned writers
such as Calvin, Beza, and others of the Reformed Churches(Burton, 1636b: 111).
According to Burton, this innovation (the prohibition) brings usback to Rome. Laudians
7 Predestination is the belief that god had chosen some men tobe saved but most will be damned.
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
14/46
14
would deny such an innovation: it would constitute amisunderstanding on the part of
Burton (see below).
Innovation in discipline holds a particular place in Burtonslist because he felt personally
concerned. In the introductory epistle, Burton claimed that ForGod and the King was
produced to present the king a true account of his views. Burtonmaintained that the
sundry innovators had falsely and maliciously presented his ownviews. I humblie
appeale to the King Majestie Sovereign and Patron, as my judgein this cause (), for I
hold it not fit that they who are my adversaries should be myjudges. In a second
document that he produced in defense of his censure,An Apologyof an Appeale (1636),
he explicitly accused the tribunal of unjustness and repeatedthe above accusation
verbatim. The judges were incompetent because they plainlyappeare to be both
parties in the cause (Burton, 1636a: 6). To Burton, innovationin discipline means
censuring people and ministers because they will not conforme totheir [bishops]
impious orders (Burton, 1636b: 127). Innovations allow theprelates to catch more
Ministers to outt them of their Ministry and living (Burton,1636b: 64). For not
yielding [to the innovations], Ministers are Excommunicated,suspended, yea threatened
with Pistolling, and with blood-shedding and hanging as Rebels(Burton, 1636b: 25).
The next innovation Burton discusses innovation in the worshipof God may seem a
minor innovation to most of us today, and was indeed consideredas such by his
accusers, but constituted a major innovation according toBurton. It concerned the
introduction of new rites and ceremonies and outwardperformances and duties
(Burton, 1636b: 17) or superstition and idolatry: Will-worshipof mans devising,
consisting in some externall complements, and gesticulations, ascringing and crouchings,
bowing, or standing upright at some Scriptures more than atothers; also a punctuall
observance in these formalities, as in bowing to the name ofJesus, to the Communion
table, or rather Altar (...), praying with their faces towardsthe East, thus tying God to a
fixed place, standing at reading of the Gospell, and the like(Burton, 1636b: 128-29). To
these, Burton adds the cathedral with her pompous Service, herAltars, Palls, Copes,
Crucifixes, Images, superstitious gestures and postures, allinstruments of musicke. The
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
15/46
15
Papall Pompe, Burton believes, constitutes ornaments of theRomish whor* (Burton,
1636b: 162), coming from desperate and all daring Popishinnovators (Burton, 1636b:
164).
Another type of innovation which may seem minor to us, as toBurtons accusers to
whom it made little difference, was that of the altering ofbooks. The Prayer Book was
a real issue at the time and Burton was probably right incalling alterations of it an
innovation. In 1637, a Royal prerogative imposed on Scotland anew Prayer Book,
fashioned mainly on the basis of the English liturgy. The resultof this laudian innovation
was a riot and eventually the so-called Bishops wars, whichplayed a key role in the
events leading to the English Civil War and Revolution. Burtonlooks at words left out,
changed or added in recent editions of the prayer books whichmake the religion of
Papists the true religion (Burton, 1636b: 131). 8 I say still,and here write it in capitall
Letters, that THE CHURCH OF ROME TEACHETH DISLOYALTY AND
REBELLION AGAINST KINGS, AND LEADES HER PEOPLE INTO ALL
CONSPIRACIES, AND TREASONS AGAINST STATES AND KINGDOMES
(Burton, 1636b: 133). Burton attributed the plague to thealtering [of] the Fast-Book and
prohibiting preaching in all place infected. Since few people goto the church and
preach, there had been a weekly increase in the number of sickpeople (Burton, 1636b:
144), while preaching was never more necessary in this City thanat this time (Burton,
1636b: 148).
Similar accusations were made against what Burton callsinnovations in the means of
knowledge (suppressing and cutting short preaching and limitingall sermons to one hour)
and the rule of manners. Prelates allow one part of the Day forGod, and the rest to mans
carnall Lusts, Sin, the world, the Devil (Burton, 1636b: 157).He was referring to
Charles Is reissue of the Book of Sports in 1633 which allowedseveral leisure activities
on Sunday, including Church ales (i.e. beer drinking afterSunday services). To Burton,
8 One example among many: Instead of this passage, Root out thatBabilonish and Antichristian Sect,
Which say of Jerusalem, &c. They in the Last Edition, 1635.set it downe thus, Root out that Babilonishand Antichristian Sectof THEM, which say of Jerusalem, &c (Burton, 1636b: 130). ToBurton, the changewas made to restrain or transfer the accusationto Puritans.
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
16/46
16
sports and Pastimes deface and destroy the very face, beauty andpower of all religion
(Burton, 1636b: 157). I am ashamed of you claimed Burton(Burton, 1636b: 49).
When the Lord calls to Fasting, you fall a Feasting (Burton,1636b: 50). Sports bring
the precipice and downfall of the people soules into perdition(Burton, 1636b: 60).
Rebels and Sabbath breakers goe hand in hand together (Burton,1636b: 63). Like the
prohibition of preaching, public assemblies brought us a doubleincrease of the Plague
(Burton, 1636b: 50) a statement reproduced by Prynne, who addedprecise numbers to
it: from 458 to 838 plague deaths (Prynne, 1636). Preaching ismade dangerous by you,
for feare of the plague; which should [rather] be a meanes (asit hath beene formerly) to
drive away the plague (Burton, 1636b: 50).
All in all, the bishops innovations are witness to what Burtondiscussed under one more
heading: innovation in the rule of faith, namely the bishopsliberty in interpretation of
the scriptures. Our new Doctors cry up the dictates of theChurch, to wit, of the Prelates,
be our only guides whereas the true rule of faith is the HolyScriptures (Burton,
1636b: 151). Burton concluded his pamphlet as it started:MySonne, feare thou the Lord,
and the King, and meddle not with them that are given to change.For their calamity shall
rise suddenly; and who knoweth the ruine of them both?
The Politics of Innovation
For God and the Kingopenly challenges the government of thebishops. As innovators,
the bishops would be revolutionaries: factious, seditious andrebels (Burton, 1636b: 9,
11). Innovators refuse to acknowledge their subjection to theKing (Burton, 1636b: 41):
The maine Principle of Popery is to exalt and acknowledge thePope as supreme over all
Powers, as Emperors, Kings, Princes, States, etc (...). ThePope, and not the King, is the
Papists King and Soveraigne (Burton, 1636b: 40-41). In otherwords, popery constitutes
rebellion against the king.
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
17/46
17
While discussing religious innovation, Burton thus meddles withpolitics.9
This would be
turned to an argument against him at court. Burton used apolitical and revolutionary
vocabulary and talked of a time of disobedience to both God andthe king from the very
beginning of the pamphlet. He tells his readers that the kingprohibits innovations, but
that innovators ignore the kings laws. The kings enemies arethose who transgresse
and oppose his Majesties royall Lawes, Proclamations andDeclarations against all
Innovations in matter of Religion, etc. And thereby disturbe thepeace of his Majesties
Kingdome and weaken the State (Burton, 1636b: 10), while HisMajesty has committed
to you the sword of Justice (...) to defend the lawes againstsuch Innovators who (...)
divide between the King and his people (Burton, 1636b: 31).Burton accuses the
innovators of a plot to overthrow the state of religion and ofthe commonwealth (Burton,
1636b: 5, 93, 99-100), changing a kingdom into a tyranny littleby little, and changing
laws, thus leading the country to troubles and discontent(Burton, 1636b: 93-95).
Burtons pamphlet discussed two central political issue of theReformation, the
jurisdiction between ecclesiastical and temporal power the juredivino doctrine or the
prelates claim to rule the church by divine authority and rightand obedience and the
right to (duty of) resistance. On one hand, while discussingfear of the King, Burton had
already suggested that to transgress [the Kings] rule brings usunder the guilt and
penalty of rebellion (Burton, 1636b: 38). When the King takingan explicit solemn oath
to maintaine the ancient Lawes and Liberties of the Kingdome,and so to rule and
governe all his people according to those Lawes established: Soconsequently and
implicitly, all the people of the Land doe sweare featly,allegiance, subjection and
obedience to their King, and that according to his just Lawes(Burton, 1636b: 39). On
the other hand, in matters of religion kings have no unlimitedpower. The King cannot
give that power to others, which he hath not himself. For thePower that is in the King is
given unto him by God (...). Neither God in his Law, nor theLawes of the Land, doe
allow the King to alter the State of Religion (...). Kings arethe Ministers of God
(Burton, 1636b: 72-3). To Burton, all our obedience to Kings andPrinces, and other
9 As a matter of fact, at the time, the affairs of religion andthe state were one and the same. On changes and
the connections between the two fields, see Russell (1967) andBernard (1990).
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
18/46
18
Superiors, must be regulated by our obedience to God (...). IfPrinces shall command any
thing against God and his Law, then we (...) must obey man innothing that stands not
with our obedience first to God (...). To obey or fear manbefore God and so above or
against God, is to make an Idol of man (Burton, 1636b: 76).
A similar argument is offered against the bishops. The eighthinnovation that Burton
documents is innovation in the civil government. According toBurton, bishops labor to
reduce and transferre [the civil government] to Ecclesiasticall,making the people used
rather as vassals and slaves to the Prelates than as the freesubjects of the King (Burton,
1636b: 129). The prelates (and the High Commission) pretend toact in the kings name,
but give themselves unlimited power, changing doctrine, ritesand ceremonies as they
wish. Burton calls for an insurrection against the bishops andfor people to stand out
against the creeping gangrene (Burton, 1636b: 34).
Burtons crusade against innovation was most certainly notforeign to his own situation
and his accusers have not failed to reproach him for this bias.To Burton, rebels are those,
like bishops and judges of the High Commission, who falslycharged himself a
loving, dutifull, faithfull, obedient peacable subject andsuggest and whisper into
Kings eares evill and false reports (Burton, 1636b: 45-46). Theyset the whole State in
a combustion, by stirring up and fomenting the fire ofdissension betweene our gratious
Soveraigne, and his loving and loyall Subjects (Burton, 1636b:46). This arte of Satan
was much practiced in those times against those that were mostreligious and pious, and it
prevailed much to the corrupting and overthrowing of Religion(...). This is also
remarkable in this present Century (...). They creep intoCourts, and by their hypocrisy,
false tales, and detractions of sincere teachers and by a kindof collusion with Courtiers,
they doe surprise the mindes of the great ones, and Magistrates(Burton, 1636b: 47-48).
Burton then drop a series of names onto them: blind watchmen,dumbe dogs, plagues of
soules, false Prophets, ravening wolves, theeves and robbers ofsoules (Burton, 1636b:
48); Declamers, Factious, Seditious, Turbulent, Disafected tothe present government,
Enemies of the King (Burton, 1636b: 49); Pope Factors who dolabour to divide the
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
19/46
19
King from his good Subjects, by poysoning his gentle eares withtheir Serpentive breath
and seducing the people to their Superstition and Idolatry(Burton, 1636b: 51).
In sum, following some puritans and Catholics of the late 1500sand early 1600s, Burton
appropriated a political category (innovation), a categorydefined by authorities as
forbidden and, as a mere kings subject, has applied it as acatchword for all men given to
change, including authorities (bishops). Armed with such anunderstanding of the
category, Burton produced the first full-length discussion ofinnovation: What is
innovation? Who is an innovator? What aims? What effects? Burtonwas responsible for
launching the first controversy on innovation. Hundreds of pageswere produced on both
side of the controversy (see next section). From then on,innovation got increasingly into
the everyday vocabulary.
To properly understand what innovation meant to Burton, thereader must keep in mind
that in religious (and political) matters it was the politicalhierarchy (including
ecclesiasts) who legitimately defined what innovation is. Theexplicit forbidding of
innovation goes back to the 1540s with Edward VIs declaration(see introduction above)
and continued in Burtons time: in 1626, only one year into hisreign, Charles I, King of
England, Scotland and Ireland (1625-49) issued aProclamation forthe Establishing of
the Peace and Quiet of the Church of England: SuppressingDissent, Innovation, and
Controversy:
In all ages great disturbances, both to Church and State, haveensued out of small
beginnings (). Because of the professed enemies of our Religion,the Romish Catholics,
the professours of our Religion may bee drawen first to Schism,and after to plaine Popery
(). His Majestie therefore (...) hath thought fit, by the adviceof his reverend Bishops, to
declare and publish, not onely to his owne people, but also tothe whole world, his utter
dislike to all those, who to shew the subtility of their wits,or to please their owne passions,doe, or shall adventure to stirreor move any new Opinions, not only contrary, but differing
from the sound and Orthodoxall grounds of the true Religion,sincerely professed, and
happily established in the Church of England; And also todeclare his full and constant
resolution, that neither in matter of Doctrine, or Discipline ofthe Church, nor in the
government of the State, he will admit of the least innovation(...). Then Charles admonish,
and also straitly charge and command all his subjects of thisRealme, and his Realme of
Ireland (...) especially those who are Church-men (...), thatneither by writing, preaching,
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
20/46
20
printing, Conferences, or otherwise, they raise any doubts, orpublish, or maintaine any new
inventions, or opinions, concerning Religion.
Two years later (1628), Charles dissolved Parliament awell-known period in England
history and, in order to silence his opponents, issued adeclaration explaining why he
dissolved the institution (His Majestys Declaration to all hisloving Subjects, of the
Causes which moved him to dissolve the last Parliament).Discussing the state of
government, church and Commonwealth, and the schisms anddivisions which have
ensued in the Church, his Majesty claimed his intention to tieand restrain all Opinions
that nothing might be left for private Fancies and Innovations(...). Neither shall we ever
give Way to the Authorising of any Thing, whereby any Innovationmay steal or creep
into the Church; but to preserve that Unity of Doctrine andDiscipline established.
Only one year after the Burton-Laud controversy (1638), CharlesI issued a declaration
on religious innovation again. Great Disorders have dailyincreased following the
introduction of new editions of the Service Book, Book of Canonsand the actions of the
High Commission. His Majesty defended himself againstintroducing innovation in
religion and laws. We neyther were, are, nor by the Grace of Godever shall bee stained
with Popish Superstition: But by the contrarie, are resolved tomaintaine the trueProtestant Christian Religion. To Charles I, itwas not innovation but feare of
innovation that hath caused the disorders which have happened oflate within this Our
ancient Kingdom. To His Majesty, Our true meaning and intentionis, not to admit of
anie innovation eyther in Religion or Lawes, but carefully tomayntayne the puritie of
Religion alreadie profest and established. The King reiteratedhis opposition to
innovation in 1641 (The Kings Proclamation on Religion).
In light of this context, one observes that Burton used acategory (innovation) more
extensively than the authorities did. While the latter usedinnovation against the kings
subjects, it was here used by a subject who accused authoritiesof innovating and was
used in a polemical way. Burtons rhetorical move wasappropriating a political term,
including all deviants in the category of innovators anddeveloping a full-length
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
21/46
21
discourse on such innovation. Extending the meaning of a term isa frequent rhetorical
strategy. It is what happened to heresy, a term of Greek origins(hairesis: 1. to take; 2.
choice), a term which turned pejorative in Jews and Christianshands. As E. Peters has
documented, from the late tenth century the term heresy came tobe used of all forms of
dissent, from the personal to the political, from theintellectual to the popular (Peters,
1980: 91).To Burton, men given to change are innovators eitherof Religion or of the
Republick (Burton, 1636: 7): heretics, as well as those actingagainst the king, be they
lay people or officials, and the King himself when he allows thebishops to innovate.
Throughout the pamphlet, Burtons rhetoric stressed the politicaleffects of such
innovators on the country: they bring in ruin and tyranny. Thepolitical rhetoric helped
make Burtons case against religious innovations.
The Innovators Answer
Burtons opponents were not fooled by his rhetoric. Theinnovators denied all Burtons
charges. Burton was the innovator, not they: You have acted thefalse Accuser claimed
Peter Heylin; your selfe must be reputed for the Innovator(Heylin, 1637: 170). No
men, claimed Laud, in any age of it, have been more guilty ofinnovation than [Burton
and his complices] (Laud, 1637: 42).
The most complete answers to Burtons pamphlet came from PeterHeylin and
Christopher Dow. In 1637, they both produced replies of twohundred pages each
discussing Burtons allegations point by point. Archbishop Laudalso produced a speech
for Burtons trial. Since Laud relied mostly on Heylins answerpublished several months
earlier, I use the latter as well as Dow in what follows. Theseare also more interesting,
since the tone of the answers clearly demonstrates the polemicalpurpose of the authors.
Heylin (1599-1662), first biographer of Archbishop Laud (Heylin,1668), was employer
in the High Commission when he wrote his answer to Burton. Beingnow employed in
the Examiners Office, stated Heylin, I must deale with you(Heylin, 1637: 1-2). I was
commanded by authority to returne an Answer to all thechallenges and charges, in the
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
22/46
22
said two Sermons and Apology of Master Burton (Heylin, 1637:preface, no page
number). Dows Laudian pamphlet Innovations UnjustlyChargedoffered, as the author
put it, an answer to clamorous and scanderous railers who levelltheir poisoned arrows
of detraction against the Soveraigne Power, and against theFathers of the Church (Dow,
1637: 2). Dows goal was to examine this Grand crimination, andto speake of the
severall supposed innovations (Dow, 1637: 31) in order toprevent the growth of so
great a mischiefe. We must no longer be silent, he said. It ishigh time then to
speake (Dow, 1637: 3-4).
Burtons opponents made use of many arguments, from the adhominen and ad populum
arguments to historical evidence. To every argument, theyoffered a counter-argument,
to every accusation they developed a counter-accusation.
To both Heylin and Dow, Burton was simply a frustratedindividual whose aim was
revenge. In the past, Burton had accepted the establishedpractices, but he was dismissed
from the court and started writing against the bishops. Havingfailed at court, suggested
Heylin, Burton thought it then high time to Court the people;that he might get in the
hundreds what he lost in the countie. Such is the humour of mostmen, whom the Court
casts out; that they do labour what they can, to out-cast theCourt (Heylin, 1637: preface,
no page number; see also Dow, 1637: 9-13). To Heylin, Burton theDictator was a
man in whom the Element of fire has the most predominance.
The pulpit, Heylin continued, first erected onely for preachingof the word of God,
was by him made a Sanctuary, or privilieged place, from whenceto raile against the time,
to cry downe all the orders of holy Church, and to distract thepeople with needless
controversies. Burton declame [s] the Clergy, and Inflame [s]the people. To Dow, it
seemes that Burtons ayme in his Sermons was the same which thePoet had in making
his comedyes, To please the people (Dow, 1637: 19). In anapprobious language,
Burton mocke [s] at the devout gestures, and pious expressionsof holy reverence in
Gods Service, he deride [s] the whole service of God allowed andapproved in our
Church (Dow, 1637: 23-24).
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
23/46
23
Ad hominen arguments and charges of seeking for popularity mixedwith accusations of
invention (in a pejorative sense). When discussing thesuppression of preaching, Heylin
accused Burton of having brought in new forms of [his] ownedevising (lecturing for
sedition rather than preaching) (Heylin, 1637: 38, 166). Fancyis another term used.
Dow talks of the fancied platform of Calvinists (Dow, 1637: 193)and Heylin of the
fancies of individuals: The opinion of some private man provenot in my poore Logick
an Innovation (). To make an innovation (), there must be anunanimous and general
concurrence of minds and men, to let on foote the new and desertthe old; not the
particular fancie of one private man (Heylin, 1637: 124).
Heylin and Dow next turn to more empirical arguments. Accordingto Dow, Burton had
misunderstood His Majesty. On the reviving of the Act on Sportson Sundays, His
Majesty intended onely to take away that scandall which somerigid sabbatarians had
brought upon our Religion (Dow, 1637: 78). He onely permit [s],and not impose[s] the
use of recreations, for all men not being morally able to applythemselves for space of
the whole day to spirituall and religious exercises and todivine Meditations onely (Dow,
1637: 80); second he authorizes provided that the proper workeof the day, the publick
service of God be first ended (Dow, 1637: 81); and third he onlycondemns drunkeness
and disorders (Dow, 1637: 83) and dancing of men and womentogether (Dow, 1637:
84). Alwaies the end and other circ*mstances ought to beconsidered, as well as the bare
letter of the Law (Dow, 1637: 89). Similarly, on innovation incivil government, Dow
could find no proof in Burton, only a misunderstanding: All thatwas intended by His
Majestie [is] not to suppresse Gods truth, but curiosity (...).Men cannot bee curious or
over-daring without impiety (Dow, 1637: 126). Briefly stated,the argument sums up to:
you misinterpret his Majesties most pious Act, in an undutifuland scandalous manner
() to serve your owne turne (Heylin, 1637: 47). The king laboursto suppress those
innovations which you and those of your dissent have introduced(Heylin, 1637: 82).
Burton would have misinterpreted the Reformation too. Oninnovation in doctrine,
particularly on not studying the modern authors, Dow repliesthat it is a thing acted
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
24/46
24
twenty yeares agoe [King James]; if [Burton] had gone backe buttwice as many more,
hee might have found the reading of Calvin and Beza accounted asgreat an Innovation
(Dow, 1637: 32). King James enjoyne young students rather tolooke into the Fathers,
and acquaint themselves with the judgment of the Ancient Church,than to take up
opinions upon trust of those moderne Authors (Dow, 1636: 34).The truth is that King
James (...), having taken some just distaste at some novellpoints delivered by some
young Divines [who] were ill affected to Monarchical Governmentand injurious to the
just right of Kings, decided that studies should not be groundedupon unsound and
dangerous opinions to the State (Dow, 1637: 35-36). To Heylin,there has never been a
prohibition against reading Calvin, Beza and others of theReformed Church, it is only
that the students should not begin with these but with theScriptures and by degrees to
those Divines (Heylin, 1637: 119).
On change in the doctrine of obedience to superiors (too muchobedience and unlimited
power to Kings), Dow accuses Burton of conjectures: Proofes Ican finde none but
conjectures and surmises (Dow, 1637: 60). The Bishops teach noother doctrine of
obedience to Superiours than hath beene ever taught in theChurch of God (...). They give
to God and Caesar both their dues (Dow, 1637: 64).
Time and circ*mstances, or history, also has to be taken intoaccount, according to Dow.
Why not alter the books when the occasion ceased, as well asmake it to serve the
present occasion of those times (like the danger of contagion)(Dow, 1637: 133).
Burtons fancies shall receive from me the answer it deserves:silence (Dow, 1637:
143). Similarly, on Charles Declaration on the Articles ofReligion supposed to have
suppressed election and predestination, Dow replied, is it notbetter that some truth for a
while be suppressed, than the peace of the Church disturbed?(Dow, 1637: 39). When
this Declaration was published by His Majesty, men wereuncapable of these doctrines
(Dow, 1637: 40). The doctrine was not suppressed, added Dow, butprofit being
unknown (Dow, 1637: 40-41). Time and circ*mstances matter toHeylin too. On
innovations in the altering of the book of prayers, Heylinreplies that many of Burtons
innovations make so little difference (Heylin, 1637: 152). As ifa forme of prayer for a
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
25/46
25
particular time and purpose must be still observed, when thereis no such cause to use it,
as at first to make it (Heylin, 1637: 160).
Finally, on the innovations in the worship of God, qualified assuperstition and idolatry
by Burton, Dow suggests that the novelties are rather symbolicand are nothing of the
substance of God worship (Dow, 1637: 113). They constitutereverence and external
ceremony (Dow, 1637: 114). Some are also simply accidents, likeplacing the altar to the
east (Dow, 1637: 117): We turne to the East, not as if God whois every where, were
there (Dow, 1637: 119). God is not tyed to any fixed place. Hemay be found
anywhere and, if anywhere, then also in the east. Why we may notdoe it toward the
East, according to the custome (Dow, 1637: 119). 10
However, the main argument of both Heylin and Dow concernsrenewal. There is no
innovation but a restoration (Heylin), no innovation but arestitution (return) to or
continuance of ancient customs (Dow). Burtons innovations areinjuriosly so termed
stated Dow (Dow, 1637: 30). Burton had already identified thisbishops tactical move:
prelates doe plead that they bring in no changes, but revivethose things which ancient
Canons have allowed and prescribed (...). (Burton, 1636b: 158).Innovations, Say they?
Wee bring no innovations, no new rites, but what hath beene inuse ever since the
Reformation (...). All that we goe about is to reduce inferiorchurches to an unity, and
conformity to their Mother Churches (Burton, 1636b: 159).
As a matter of fact, while discussing innovations in the worshipof God, Dow argues: I
cannot but wonder with what face he can accuse any of thesethings of novelty, when
there is not one of the things he names which hath not been usedin the primitive and
purest ages of the Church (Dow, 1637: 114). They were introducedin the beginning of
Christianity, continued at the Reformation and confirmed by theParliament (Dow, 1637:
120). Similarly, Heylin could find not a single innovation inBurton: The Papists and
these men, how different soever they may seeme to bee in othermatters, have (...) agreed
10 However, God is not in every individual. While discussingtranssubstantiation, Dow says: Gods
presence is not everywhere alike (...). He is not so in thebrute creatures as in the rationall; nor so in the
wicked as in his Saints (Dow, 1637: 119).
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
26/46
26
to charge this Church with novelties and innovations (...). Butin the reformation of this
Church, we introduced no novelties (...) but onely laboured toreduce her to that estate
and quality, whereby she was in her originall beauty and thePrimitive times (...). All
those Innovations which they have charged upon the Church intheir scandalous
Pamphlets, are but a restitution of those ancient orders, whichwere established heere at
that Reformation (Heylin,1637: preface, no page number). It isno innovation to admit
traditions stated Dow. Onely we doe not admit any traditionscontrary to the
Scriptures (Dow, 1637: 167-68). To Laud, ancient practices havebeen altered little by
little in the past and now, if any authority offer [s] to reduceit, this ancient course of the
Church is by and by called an innovation (Laud, 1637: 55).
The argument of renewal is used for every innovation identifiedby Burton. On the
limited power of the king to alter the state of religion(instituting new rites and
ceremonies), Heylin says the king only restore[s] this Church toits ancient luster
(Heylin, 1637: 82). On the jure divino power of the bishops,Heylin replies that this is
no new saying devised but yesterday (Heylin, 1637: 64).Similarly, discipline (censures
of the Church) proceed[s] no otherwise now then of the old did(Heylin, 1637: 131);
the worship of God is long since ordained by Canon (), a reformecertainely as old as
the Reformation (Heylin, 1637: 135), an ancient custom (Heylin,1637: 136), and a
reviver and continuance of the antient usages which have beenpracticed in this Church
since the Reformation, and were commended to it from the purestages (Heylin, 1637:
140); alterations of books yes, but a restitution onely of theproper reading (Heylin,
1637: 150). Mr. Burton, YOU are the innovator (Heylin, 1637:38).
All said, Burton is a revolutionary. He puts into question boththe kings and the bishops
authority and calls for popular insurrection. As Laud put it,all these libels are against
the King and the Law, and can have no other purpose than to stirup sedition among the
people (Laud, 1637: 43-44). Heylin put it similarly: There isnone of any age, nor all
together in all ages, which hath shewne greater malice unto theChurch, and to the
governors and Teachers of it, then you, Master Burton (). Youhave the Kings royal
power in question. But it is a kind of disobedience anddisloyalty to question what a
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
27/46
27
King can do (Heylin, 1637: 178-79) and a sedition to call uppeople to insurrection
(Heylin, 1637: 185). You stirre up the people to effect theruine [of Bishops] (...), to
bring them into discredit and contempt (...) and incense hisMajestie against them
(Heylin, 1637: 183).
The accusation of rebellion and sedition is similar to thatBurton made against his
opponents. As a matter of fact, to every accusation, there is ananswer or reply. To every
innovation there is a denial: others innovate, not oneself.There is something ironic here
about the protestant churchmen hostile to innovation in the wakeof the biggest
innovation of them all, the Reformation. How could innovation besuch a fuzzy concept
and be amenable to so many contradictory interpretations?
What is Innovation?
In 1637, Burton had his ears cut and was sentenced to lifeimprisonment. However, after
three years he was released by Parliament. He went back to hisposition at Saint Matthew
and became a popular hero (Hughes, 1974; Auchter, 2001). As amatter of fact, the tide
was turning against Archbishop Laud. Parliament accused Laud oftreason and
imprisoned him in the Tower of London. Laud was beheaded inJanuary 1645. This put
an end to the innovation controversy.
Parliament had always been against innovation but was silencedfor years by King
Charles. As early as 1628-29, the third Parliament had set up acommittee to inquire into
innovation in religion and politics and adopted a Resolutionagainst divers courses and
practices tending to the change and innovation of religion(Resolutions on Religion
Drawn by a Sub-Committee of the House of Commons). As commentedby
parliamentarian John Eliot, the Parliament voted whosoever shallbring in innovation in
religion, or () seek to extend or introduce Popery orArminianism, or any other opinion
disagreeing from the true and orthodox Church, shall be reputeda capital enemy to this
kingdom and commonwealth (Forster, 1864: 419-20. However, toParliament, Laud was
not the only enemy. Charles was another. The king had levied atax without Parliaments
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
28/46
28
approval. He was reputed an innovator in the Government(Protestation of the House of
Commons, 1628-29). As Eliot put it, the tax was against theancient and settled course of
government, and tending to an innovation therein (Forster, 1864:455). In his declaration
dissolving Parliament, Charles declared that these [political]Innovations [Parliaments
committees] we will never permit again.
When Parliament reconvened in 1640 after an eleven-year absence,it resolved that many
censures and sentences of the High Commission were illegal andvoid. The House of
Commons also voted that: 1. The communion table should standeast and west; 2) Games
and pastime on the Lords day should be prohibited; 3) picturesand images in churches
should be taken away (The Orders from the House of Commons forthe Abolishing of
Superstition, and Innovation in the Regulation of ChurchAffairs, 1641). Parliament was
backed by hundreds of petitions (Morrill, 1985), nationalconvenants from Londoners
and Scots forbearing the practice of all novations, and somebishops who had
constructed a listing of (forbidden) innovations in doctrine,discipline and the Common
Prayer Book (A Copy of the proceedings of some worthy andlearned Divines Touching
Innovations in the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church ofEngland, 1641).
In order to appreciate the historical relevance of thecontroversy to the history of
innovation, at least four elements have to be taken intoaccount: the context out of which
innovation as a category emerged, the meaning of the category,the values held by the
people at the time and the uses to which the category wasput.
The innovation controversy was embedded in a context or periodof history governed by
the paradigm of orthodoxy, authority and order. Innovation wasforbidden. Church and
State were interwoven and innovation in one threatens authorityin the other. Innovation
fears crown sourcing that would led any kind of change tests thewaters. Burton put it in
terms of fear or obedience to both God and kings. For nearly ahundred years there was a
new orthodoxy in England (Protestantism) to which subjects(including the bishops) had
to submit. But some, according to Burton, were corrupting theestablished doctrine with
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
29/46
29
idolatry and superstition. When Burton accused the bishops ofinnovating, he was calling
for a restoration of purity in the English reformedtradition.
Seventeenth-century England (and Europe) was also a context ofchange (political,
economic, social and cultural). New and radical ideas andprojects abounded, turning the
world upside down (Hill, 1972). Order and orthodoxy had to beenforced and it became
a matter of discipline to obey the authorities. Printingseditious pamphlets to incense the
people against the king (Heylin, 1637: 43) or using the pulpitto ransack the affaires of
state (Dow, 1637: 156) was unacceptable. If every man had leaveto cast his cruple,
the balance of authority would soone weighed downe and bringAnarchie, stated
Heylin (Heylin, 1637: 38, 40).
Putting into question the discipline of the bishops was notallowed. Burton had compared
the High Commission to the arte of Satan. However, repliedHeylin, as farre as you
have said the truth, they [the judges] will all joyne with you.But when you leave to speak
the trueth, which is the Office of a preacher, and fall uponSeditious, false and factious
discourse, to inflame the people, and bring them into illopinion, both of their King, and
those to whom the government of the Church is by him intrusted;you are no more a
preacher, but a Prevaricator, a dangerous Boutefeu, andIncendiarie (Heylin, 1637: 6). 11
Too many speake evill of the things they understand not, andshall utterly perish in their
own corruption (Heylin, 1637: preface, no page number). Whatauthority, asked Dow,
hath [Burton] to demand a fight of [Church] Authority? Who madehim Inquisitor
generall over the Bishops, to examine their actions (Dow, 1637:106). To Dow, in any
Church since the beginning of Christianity was it ever knownethat any Church, or any
evill government did, or could subsist, without inflictingcensures upon the willfull
violators of their orders and constitutions? (Dow, 1637: 109).The punitions are neither
an innovation nor a persecution but an act of justice (Dow,1637: 112).
11 Similar accusations abound in Dow: a projector (projectingplots) (Dow, 1637: 27-28), a captain of
factions (Dow, 1637: 179) and a broacher of novell opinions(Dow, 1637: 213).
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
30/46
30
What was innovation to people of the time? Like heresy (andheterodoxy), innovation
does not exist in and of itself, but only in relation toorthodoxy and order. Orthodoxy
claims that there exist right and wrong beliefs concerningChrist and his teachings
(Peters, 1980: 14). In light of this context, innovation had aspecific meaning. It had
nothing to do with originality or creativity not yet. Innovationhas nothing to do with
progress either: it is rather subversive. Innovation isessentially defined as change in
accepted practices, more specifically introducing change (oralterations) in public or
state affairs: in religious matters new I call it because it isflat contrary both to the
expresse Scriptures and to the judgment of all Divines in allages of the Church (Burton,
1636b: 77) and in politics King and novelties here doe stand inopposition one
against the other (Burton, 1636b: 100). Given this meaning(introducing change), it is
not surprising that innovation has been discussed in terms ofcultural change
(anthropologists), social change (sociologists) andtechnological change (economists)
when, in the twentieth century, it came back into the vocabularyafter centuries of
terrorism. 12
Innovation was not a neutral term but a morally charged one. Itwas a pejorative
designation: a derogatory label applied to opponents and enemiesand, like heresy, what
we know about innovators we know largely from the records leftby their enemies, who
sought to emphasize the fact and consequences of their deviance,not accurately report
them (Peters, 1980: 61). 13 It reflected the values andattitudes of its users and the
reaction to nonconformists and deviants, namely all those whor*define the boundaries of
normal behavior (as many other terms did at the time: curiosity,virtuoso, originality,
eccentricity and enthusiasm) and act contrary to the establishedcustom. To His Majesty
innovation was no less than a deliberate transgression of norms.It was both heretical and
revolutionary. The kings declarations and proclamationsdiscussed above are witness to
this interpretation.
12 On innovation and other concepts like change, novelty andcreativity, see Godin, 2011.13 In his bookConcerning Heretics, thehumanist Sebastian Castellio (1515-63) had defined hereticssimplyas those with whom we disagree. Cited in Skinner (1978:247).
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
31/46
31
To others, innovation was mere fancy. When Burton labeled allthose who do separate the
fear of the Lord and of the king 14 as Novell Doctors (Burton,1636b: 81, 126, 151,
153), Novellers (Burton, 1636b: 96, 99, 100, 156), NewBabel-builders (burton,
1636b: 32), New Reformers (Burton, 1636b: 66), Reformers ofReligion (Burton,
1636b: 106, 107) and New Masters (Burton, 1636b: 107, 108, 163),he was referring to
practices (idolatry or new forms of worship) which were of theirown invention
(Burton, 1636b: 15, 109). It was seen as mans device and amatter of private
opinion. In sum, innovation was mere novelty and fondness fornovelty. Similar
pejorative uses of the term novelty were made in Heylin and Dow(see p. 22 above). As a
matter of fact, the distinction between novelty (as curiosity,contemplation, subtlety and
fashion) and invention (as useful) was still in the making(Francis Bacon, Novum
Organum, 1620) and had not yet gained pre-eminence. 15
Because of its pejorative connotation, the use and diffusion ofthe category innovation
developed slowly over many centuries. In the church of the1500s, there were occasional
charges of novelty and innovation. Certainly, the removing ofnovelties was a major
goal of the reformers. However, novelty was discussed in termsof heresy, and enemy
was used as a term for innovator. Private opinion (and varietyof opinions) was also a
popular term. Innovation really started being used more widelyin the 1600s, above all
during the Burton-Laud controversy and after. There innovators,novelers, novelists,
etc., emerged as labels for those who worked for a return toRome as well as for a
number of ideas and behaviours previously called heresy andheretical. Innovation came
to share the vocabulary with heresy. 16 Burtons popularitytogether with William
Prynne may have furthered the diffusion of the term.
14 Anabaptists and Papists who refuse to honor the King, andJesuits who attribute unlimited power to
Kings.15 The history of the concept of invention remains to bewritten (Godin, 2008).16
At this time, the vocabulary of heresy also came to share itsplace with other terms like error. Anthony
Wotton in Runne from Rome (1624) talked of erroneous rather thanheretical beliefs in order to avoid
needless wrangling over the word, for it seemes to many somewhatdoubtfull what is properly to be called
heresy (Milton, 1995: 210). Novelty was sometimes discussed interms of the paradigm of truth too: from
antiquity of truth to novelty of errors (Burton, 1636b:100).
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
32/46
32
Nevertheless, the pejorative connotation of the term gave riseto a whole vocabulary on
renovation, restoration and reformation (Erneuerungin German) inlieu et place of
innovation.17
As a matter of fact, English Protestants denied that they hadcreated a new
religion, and talked instead of a reformed one. 18 In theensuing centuries, innovation
continued to be seen as negative. Violent, dangerous,pernicious, zealous,
unscriptural and schismatic are only some of the terms used totalk of innovation
among eighteenthand nineteenth century divines. Pejorativeassociations also abounded
in clerical titles of the same period: ignorance and innovation,superstition and
innovation, usurpation and innovation, revolution andinnovation. At the same time,
there were very few uses of innovation elsewhere in a positivesense, whether in science,
literary criticism or mechanical arts, each developing its owndisciplinary vocabulary,
respectively the terms discovery, imagination and invention. 19As a consequence
those who, in the ensuing centuries, wanted to rehabilitateinnovation had to develop
strategic thoughts on how to deal with resistances toinnovation.
The use of innovation has another characteristic: itssubjectivity. To a certain extent,
innovation is objective: it is change in the established order.However, we have seen
that what order, change and innovation are seen to be variesaccording to individuals
interpretations. Innovation is subjective: others (enemies)innovate, not oneself. As the
ars rhetorica of the culture of humanism suggests it is alwayspossible to construct a
17 It is often suggested (or assumed) in the literature that thelanguage of innovation, because it is
pejorative, was not used, but rather renovation and the likeinstead (Panofsky, 1960: 37-38; Burke, 1974:
221-27; Whitney, 1986; Palonen, 2003: 76-77). However, thatanother vocabulary came into use has not
eliminated that on innovation. As this paper has documented, thelanguage of innovation was used by
authorities and other people, although with a negativeconnotation.18 Arguments for a Reformation may be summed up as 1)1500s: not a new church (vis--vis Rome) but a
reformed one; removing of corruption, removing of novelties; 2)1600s: return to primitive church and true
church scriptures, invisible church (God church, truebelievers), medieval church (sects like those of Hus
and Wycliff as proto-protestants) (Milton, 1995: chapter6).19
Certainly, new and associated concepts abound in the writings ofthe time, and need to be studiedseriously in any historiography ofinnovation. However, the new was not talked about in terms of
innovation. The use of new is also not without contradiction.For example, on one hand, the tradition of
ars rhetorica denied innovation: the central argument ofrhetoricians, according to which persuasion
consisted in convincing an audience to accept something they didnot already hold to be true, was to be
achieved by means of accommodating the unfamiliar or unpopularproposition to the values of the
audience. On the other hand, rhetorical manuals advised theorator that he should guarantee the
attentiveness of his audience. This could be done if the oratordemonstrated that the matters which he was
about to discuss were important (magna), novel (nova) orincredible. I owe this point on rhetoric to MarkkuPeltonen.
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
33/46
33
plausible argument in utramque partem, on either side of thecase (Skinner, 1996: 9, 97-
99). Burton attributed innovation to Laud and the bishops; Laud,Heylin and Dow denied
being innovators and accused Burton of innovating. The use ofthe category moved from
being a well-defined transgression (Kings proclamations) tobeing polemical: anyone
who, according to an accuser, brought in novelties as regardscriptures was an innovator.
In fact, the participants in the controversy identified avarying number of innovations.
Burton discussed the bishops innovations under eight headings.However, to Laud there
were fourteen innovations in Burton, not eight, and some fewmore there are (Laud,
1637: 68) To Dow, the number varied considerably: I have goneover these eight heads
of Innovations [but] I might easily have reduced them to halfethat number (Dow, 1637:
192). At the very end of his pamphlet, Dow claimed that he couldhave charged Burton
and his party with five times that number (Dow, 1637: 213).
The subjectivity of innovation got into twentieth centuryrepresentations. In 1962, in a
book that has remained a classic for some decades (fiveeditions), US sociologist E. M.
Rogers defined an innovation as an ideaperceivedas new by itsadopter (Rogers, 1962).
This subjectivity explains the reluctance of economists to studyinnovation late in the
twentieth century, namely following anthropologists andsociologists. Nonetheless,
subjectivity got into the methodological manual used byofficials for measuring
technological innovation, the OECD Oslo manual: innovationdiffers according to
whether it is conducted at the firm, market or world level(OECD, 2005).
In his study of the period 1600-1640, Milton suggested that(what I have called) the
controversy on innovations derived less from any easilyidentifiable novelty than from
the fact that a practice so notable for its associated Romanerrors was expounded and
encouraged without a single caveat or even allusion to any papalcorruption (Milton,
1995: 69-70). The engine behind religious conflict, arguedMilton, was not their
introduction of any specific doctrinal innovations indeed manyof the ideas which
provoked most complaint may be found expressed, in differentpolemical contexts,
among their opponents. Rather, what triggered conflict was themanner in which these
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
34/46
34
ideas were presented, the specific polemical context in which anidea was expressed and
the presence or absence of caveats which were standard in aparticular polemical genre
(Milton, 1995: 543). Innovations did violence to wider aspectsof Protestantism. They
were breaks with aspects of religion (the Reformation) whichserved national identity:
they were symbols of deviation in Anglican doctrine andsuperstition and idolatry
(Milton, 1995: 98-100).
That there was no innovation or no identifiable or specificnovelty deserves
qualification. The innovations were minor perhaps, as some wouldsay today, but
nevertheless symbolic and, for this reason they were realinnovation to many at the
time. Milton defined innovation from todays point of view: aninnovation must be
something new. 20 This is a recurrent misunderstanding in theliterature on this period.
Historians often confuse our meaning of innovation with the aimof innovators. Because
innovation at the time aimed at a restoration, reformation andrenewal, it would not
really be innovation; it was not something novel (or firstintroduction) but a return to
earlier and purer orthodoxy. However, once innovation isunderstood as introducing
change (not creativity or originality) and perceived change, onecannot deny that there
were many innovations at the time and that Burton had a goodcase for his claim that
his adversaries were introducing innovations. That theinnovations were really
understood as innovation is attested by the severity of thepunishments. As Bray put it
while discussing the series of acts from the mid-1500s onwarddesigned to enforce
uniformity in religion, The severity of the punishments, whichincluded death for
relatively minor offences, reflected the concern felt by manythat the old religion was
being overthrown [and] demonstrates the essential hollowness ofthe opposition to
reform (Bray, 1994: 221).
Another element of interpretation would take into account ashared perception of the
time: innovation was regularly defined as a slow and gradualprocess, but one which,
20 How much novelty is a matter of debate. Controversialclassifications have been developed and contrast
major to minor or incremental innovation. Similarly,distinctions are often made between innovation (as
first adoption of a new idea, thing or behavior) and imitation(diffusion of the innovation or adoptionamong followers, even if itis new to them).
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
35/46
35
over time, gets out of proportion. Little things do matter. Putdifferently, over the long
term minor innovations have cumulative and undesirable effects.To Burton, alterations
and innovations doe fill the peoples minds with jealousies andfeares of an universall
[my italics] alteration of Religion (Burton, 1636b: 147); toPrynne, they breed a
generall[my italics] feare of a sudden alteration of ourReligion (Prynne, 1636). Little
by little they change a kingdom into a tyrany (Burton, 1636b:93). The argument has a
long history, going back to Aristotle (see above, p. 11). It wasused by N. Machiavelli in
his discussion of innovation in The Prince (1513). Charles Ialso made use of it in his
1626 declaration (see p. 20 above). The argument would remainpopular among many
others in discussing innovation. Sixty years after thecontroversy (1696), an anonymous
British Baptist wrote a pamphlet on the innovation of singing inthe Church. Singing in
itself is not a matter of the greatest moment, said the author,but if similar innovations
multiply, in forms of praying for example, it might tend to theutter ruine of Primitive
Christianity (Anonymous, 1696). The argument was not muchdifferent from Cranmers
in the preface to the 1549 prayer book (see p. 6 above). Onehundred years later (1785),
the English divine George Berkeley would pronounce a sermon inwhich he suggested:
At first [innovation] runs in a gentle rill, but, by degrees,the rill swells into a mighty
torrent that sweeps away every thing before it (Berkeley, 1785:34-35).
Conclusion
Innovation would continue to have bad press in the followingcenturies. Together with
negative religious connotation, political considerationscontributed to a pejorative
representation of innovation. Berkeley is witness to such arepresentation. He used the
same Solomons proverb as Burton to discuss innovation. Berkeleywas concerned with
those who attempt by violent methods, to reform the Constitution(Berkeley, 1785: 6),
the danger and the sin of making violent innovations in anyconstitution of government
whatever, that has been long established, and to which thepeople have been accustomed
quietly to submit (Berkeley, 1785: 7).
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
36/46
36
Berkeley offered three reasons for avoiding violent innovation.One was the nature of
man: man is made for society and society necessarily implieslaws and subordination
(Berkeley, 1785: 15). Second, to Berkeley there existed diversedangers of innovation in
forms of government. Certainly, to Berkeley, nothing human isabsolutely fixed ().
General alterations in the modes of government are, perhaps,unavoidable. But great
and violent innovations no individual is entitled to make(Berkeley, 1785: 33).
Alterations perhaps, innovations no. Much more ill than good isever to be expected
from them (Berkeley, 1785: 34). As an example, Berkeleydiscussed the history of
Charles I. In fact, Berkeleys sermon was preached on January 31,as was Burtons, the
day appointed to be observed as the anniversary of the martyrdomof the king. He looked
at the attempts of the Commons to abolish the royalty, which ledto a civil war. This
served as his third reason for avoiding innovation. The usualpretence of those who are
given to change is to redress grievances, and to reform theconstitution (Berkeley,
1785: 35). But it has been commonly found that, after civilbroils, a return of peace has
not brought back with it freedom and happiness. Not to insistupon the executions,
proscriptions, and confiscations which must inevitably takeplace (Berkeley, 1785: 36).
To Berkeley, it is hardly to be expected that () the grievancescomplained of should be
redressed; an unsuccessful rebellion having been ever found tostrengthen the
government it intended to destroy (Berkeley, 1785: 36-37).
Berkeley concluded as follows. It is worth reproducing a passageat length from this
conclusion:
That our constitution is absolutely perfect, it would beridiculous to assert. Perfection
belongs not to lapsed humanity. That a better constitution maybe conceived, we do not
positively deny (). It may, however, be consistently assertedthat so few and so
unimportant are the defects, so many and so valuable theperfections, of the nicely balancedBritish Constitution, as torender it highly probable that any innovations in its systemwill
be more likely to injure than to improve it (p. 87-88). No planof representation could
possibly be devised in which the WHOLE NATION would agree. Whythen should we
hazard the consequences of an innovation, which it is barelypossible might do some good;
but which is much more likely to create discord (p. 91). My Son,fear thou the Lord and the
King, and meddle not with them that are given to change.
7/29/2019 Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given toChange: Innovation as Evil
37/46
37
A few years later, two more English ministers would make use ofSolomons proverb to
discuss innovation in sermons preached before local militaryassociations. They both
argued for respect and submission to superiors. Thomas Acklandin Religion and Loyalty
Recommended, and a Caution Against Innovation (1798), suggestednot to meddle with
them that are given to change; that is, do not listen to, do notconsort with, much less
yield to those persons, who whilst they talk of reformation, andpretend only to improve
or to renovate the government of the English nation, seek tomake fundamental
alterations, to the subversion of the monarchy, and to the utterabolition of all
establishments (Ackland, 1798: 15). Henry Fly in LoyaltyRecommended by its
Connection with Religion, and the Effects of a Fondness forInnovation (1798), using the
popular fury of 1780 in England and the French revolution asexamples, discussed how
the love of novelty plunge[s] a whole nation into the mostdreadful calamities.
The twentieth century representation of innovation had a morepositive value, and it owes
to usefulness (Godin, 2011). As a contributor to the FrenchGazette infernale put it as
early as 1789: On ne doit jamais craindre d'innover, quand lebien public est le rsultat
![Godin, B. - Meddle Not With Them That Are Given to Change: Innovation as Evil - [PDF Document] (2024)]()