93

MATTHEW WREN, D. D.

the honourable Common’s-house of this Story, were in Conscience bound tohave forborn the charging of this Defendant therewith, that [he by his Offi-cers did it] unless they had known of some Act of his therein, or were inLaw assured, that he is to answer to all that the Officers did without his Pri-vity. For he cannot term them his Officers, which were neither by himput in, nor could be put out by him, nor were in any sort liable to any Com- >pulsion, or Censure from him, nor received any Wages, Fee, or Reward ofhim. They should likewise in Honesty have forborn to have informed, that)it was a Thing not used before in that Diocese, whereas in QÆlizaheth’s Days,it had been used in all the Parish Churches (as is before foe wed): and many yetliving do remember, that Dr. Norton the Preacher of Ipswich , did ordinarilythere use it, and in some Places there, it still continued so, as at the Cathe-dral of Norwich , at IVilby, Walsingham , and sundry other Places.

To the thirteenth Article this Defendant anfwereth, and faith, that it is soconfusedly, and uncertainly charged, as that it is impossible to give a particularReply unto it. Also in sundry parts of it, repeateth the fame Charge, whichhath been answered in some of the precedent Articles.

He denieth, that there were any illegal Innovations done by him. Butfaith, that all that he did, tended rather to redress Innovations, which hadsecretly crept in since the Reformation, and so to settle Order, Peace, Unifor-mity, Decency, and Devotion in the said Diocese.

He also denieth, that his under Officers by and upon his Directions and In-junctions did any Thing that was undue: but faith, that their Actions weretheir own, and that they were free from all Power of this Defendant: and thathe never took upon him to give any Injunctions; and that the Directions whichhe gave, were neither a Command nor a Warrant to the said Officers (whowere rather to judge of Right betwixt this Defendant and Others and to weighall his Mistakes) to do otherwise than was befitting for them.

He also faith, that no Answer can be made to that part of the Charge[1 hat sundry were excommunicated, suspended, or deprived, and otherwisecensured, and silenced, aud some lo prosecuted, as was suspected to be theCause ot their Deaths,] unless the Parties be named, who they were, andwhen, and by whom censured : and unless it be distinctly charged, whatother Censure is meant besides Silencing, Suspending, Excommunication,or Deprivation: and by whom, or upon what Grounds such Suspicion washad of the Cause of the Death of any.

He further humbly offereth to the Consideration of this most honourableCourt, that in 1b large a Diocese as that of Norwich is (well near equal toten of tl le smaller Dioceses) and so numerous a Clergy as therein is con-sisting of above 1300 Titles, besides all those of the Cathedral church, andSchool-masters and Curates, whether great moderation were not used, thatsiy the Space of two Years and four Months, within which Time a primaryVisitation and five Synods, viz. every half Year one, were held for theR'fhop, no greater Number fell under all kind of Censures. EspeciallyMten as Excommunication doth by Law, fall upon those that are absent,either from Visitation or Synods; and Suspension is a Censure, which, inthe Practice of those Courts, is incurred in one Hour, and taken oss in another,a nd is of little or no Grievance at all, except it be wilfully persisted in.tor whereas it is charged [That they could not be absolved without giv-ln g promise to conform to the Bishop’s Direction editis et edendis] the De-fendant humbly disclaimed! and disavowed! the fame, as a Thing never done,directed, or allowed, or intended by him. Nor had he ever any Thought,either to give forth any other Directions afterward, or to have the MinistersUr g e d, to promise a Conformity to those which he had given. Only where

B b great