94

THE LIFE OF

great Contempt’should have been found, he would have taken Advice, and,perhaps, not till the next septennial Visitation, could he have done that, whichmight have been legally done with them.

He also denieth, that any Ministers were by him inforced to depart thisRealm into Holland , or into other Parts beyond the Sea, or to remove intoother Dioceses ; much less, that any were so prosecuted by him, as to be theCause of their Deaths, or of leaving their Cures, and going away; neitherdoth he believe, that there was any just and true Cause given to them by anyso to do, as far as he was ever informed, by Certificate or Letters fromthe Chancellor or Commissary, touching the said Ministers.

But as to the Parties in this Article named, this Defendant, referring him-self otherwise to the Acts of the Court, thus humbly answereth, that

Mr. Thomas Scott being under Suspension, the first Thing that this De-fendant did after his coming personally into the said Diocese, was to holda Court, and there with all tender and respective Usage, to absolve thesaid Mr. Scott for three Months; and after that, he directed, to have himforborn for six Months more ; and after that for eight or nine Months lon-ger ; within which Time he received divers Letters from the said Mr. Scott,expressing great Acknowledgements of the Favour which he found from thisDefendant. He also faith, that the laid Mr. Scott was in his wonted Healthand Life, above a Year, after this Defendant left the See of Norwich. Forh.e died not till about Whitsuntide 1640, which was about two Yearsafter.

Mr. William Powell (as it was certified to this Defendant) was suspendedfor many Defects against the Canons, and had Absolution soon after (withoutcoming for it himself) granted to his Proctor Mr. Edward Trott.

Mr. Richard Raymund likewise was so suspended, and shortly after so ab-solved, , viz. in the Person of Mr. Richard Pert his Proctor.

Mr. John Carter a Curate in Norwich , this Defendant had a good Opini-on of, till by frequent Letters for a Year together from the Chancellor, hewas otherwise informed of him, viz. Jpril 22, 1636. May 3, 1636. June22, 24, and 27. Oftober 20. Dec. 7. Feb. 5 and 17. March 10. unto whomhe wholly referred him.

Mr. Nicholas Beard, a Curate in Ipswich, was suspended by the Visitors, asfor other Defaults, so also for denying to. exhibit and shew forth (whichat all Visitations is by Law to be done) his Letters of Orders, by which itmight appear, that he was a Minister; and his Licence to serve there, bywhich it might appear, that he was os that Diocese. And this Defendantwas not hasty of himself, to restore him, because he had over (within avery few Years before) heard him inveigh very bitterly in a Sermon,against the State, and against a noble Earl of this Land, then a great Of-ficer ; and was also by honest Men informed, that the said Mr. Beard was avery turbulent Spirit, whom they suspected to have been the secret Procurerof a great Riot which was committed suddenly in an Evening by a dan-gerous Concourse of mean People against this Defendant.

Mr. Hudson (as this Defendant was informed) was suspended at the Visita-tion, but was again restored within a while after. And more this Defen-dant never knew nor heard of him.

Mr .Robert Kent, this Defendant (to his Remembrance) never heard of>but now, upon Enquiry, he finds, that he was a Minister in Norwich (butnow dead) whom the Chancellor, upon some Occasion did suspendabout 10 o’Clock in the Forenoon, and absolved him before three in theAfternoon of the same Day, not paying a Penny Fee for his Dismission.Let the Acts be perused. Nor of Mr. Broom more than that being a Curate in

Norwich,