95

MATTHEW WREN, D. D.

Norwich, and falling under Censure, he was soon restored, and had Licenceper totam Diœce/in.

Mr. Mott was by the Chancellor suspended for direct Defects, and forsome contumelious Words, which he gave to him fitting in Court.

Mr. William Bridge being (before) in some Intention to leave Norwich ,Was excommunicated for not appearing, at the Visitation (in which he waspreiented for many dangerous Doctrines) and so he presently departed in-to Holland, as the Chancellor wrote to this, Defendant. Yet was he afterton Months Expectation restored again in the Person of his Proctor. But thenhaving left two Cures all this while unprovided for, be was in publickForm of Law (by this Defendant’s Advice to the Chancellor) cited to Re-sidence, and not yet coming, he was expected near ten Months more, andthen the Chancellor pronoune’d Sentence of Deprivation against him, asLaw requir’d, for Desertion of his Churches.

Mr. ‘Thomas Allen likewise would not appear at the Visitation, and was (ofCourse) excommunicated. But then came he into the Court and theretender’d a Libel of Defamation and Defiance against all ecclesiastical Govern-ment, and so absented himself for many Months. He was therefore athist cited to Residence, and afterwards deprived as Mr. Bridge was.

Mr. John Ward of Norwich was excommunicated, cited, expected anddeprived for Non-residcnce, as the former.

Mr. Robert Peck , for the like Non-relidence (as the Chancellor signifiedto this Defendant) was after more than a Year’s Expectation, by him de-prived. Of whom the said Chancellor complained also to this Defendant(and the like of ‘Thomas Allen) that they had so prevailed with their Pa-rishioners, that tho’ the Fruits of their Benefices were put into Sequestrationm their Absence, thereby to pay the Curates which should serve their Cures,yet none would pay any thing to the Sequestrators. It also appears by theRecords of this House, 21 J ac. That the said has been complainedby the Justices of Peace, unto the Bishop - for Misdemeanours; and thatin Anms. 1615, 1.617 and 1622. he was convicted for lnconformity, Simony,and holding of Conventicles.

Mi. jetemiah Burroughcs likewise fell under the Chancellor’s Censure, who(it should seem) knew him so well, that he was loath to have him too soonrestored [ Vide liter as, May 2.2, 1636. May 27. June 3.] yet this DefendantWas inclined to have had Restitution given him by the Chancellor, if hecame in due Manner for it, \Vide liter as Feb. 24.] But howsoever, he ad-vised to call him in the mean while to Residence, because the Parish shouldnot be unserved. That was done, and he was expected more than a Year,and in the mean Time the Chancellor certifying this Defendant, that thesaid Mr. Burroughes had attempted him by the way of Bribery, with an Offerof 40. /. that he had also been beyond the Seas, and disguised in a Sol-dier’s Habit did return, with many libellous Pamphlets brought in the Ship,this Delend’ant could not then but well approve of it, that Sentence of De-privation should proceed for his Non-residence [Vide liter as May 31. June9 > QSiober 6. Nov. 17. Nov. 24.]

Mr. William Greenhill was in the lame Fault of Non-residence, and int” e lame Ship and Disguise with Mr. Burroughcs , and so fell under thelame Deprivation, [Fide litter as March 10, 1636.]

Mr. J idmundCalamy (as this Defendant believeth) was never under anyensure, but he came to this Defendant two or three times during hisAbode i n Suffolk, and was very welcome to him, and shewed not, buthat he did very well approve of the ecclesiastical Proceedings. But thiscfendant is now informed, that his Successor Bishop Mount ague did re-

move

✓