9 8
THE LIFE OF
’ But this Defendant humbly fheweth, that in the aforesaid Deprivations(and in all other Censures whereof he was made privy) he aimed at no-thing, saving the discharging of his own Duty, and the preserving of thegood Orders of the Church. As to any Advantage thereby to his own Be-hoof, he was so far from admitting the least Pretence thereof, as that howeverMr. Case, Parson of Erpingham , was no less faulty for Inconformity and De-sertion of his Cure, than some of the rest ; yet this Defendant the ratherwinked at some Jugglings betwixt the said Case and the under Officers, forhis avoiding of Censure, lest it might be suspected, that he aimed at hisBenefice ; whereof the Bishop of Norwich was the Patron.
He also humbly conceiveth, that it may well be taken for an Argumentof just and right Proceedings against the forenamed Ministers, that not any oneof them would ever appeal from the Sentence of the Conlistory, and therebybring their Cause to be discussed and judged in the Arch-bishop’s Court. Fromwhence also, if they should have sound any Grievance, there lay anyAppeal unto the King, and so by delegate Judges (assigned by the Lord-Keeper) they might with much less Trouble and Damage, have obtained such’Relief as would have proved to have been due unto them.
To the fourteenth Article this Defendant answereth and denieth, that hedid unlawfully compel the Inhabitants of that Diocese, to raise the Floorsof the Chancels, rail the Tables, remove Seats, and make other Altera-tions to theExpence of above 5000/. or that he did vex by Presentments,Citations, Censures, Journies and Attendance at the Courts, such as did notobey.
For Proof whereof, first he humbly referreth himself to what he hathanswer’d to the first, to the third, and to the fourth Articles; and also inthe eighth and thirteenth Articles. And he further believeth, that the Church-wardens os some Parishes (for some by Respects) might be induced to bestowExpences in these Things, and that in other Parishes they may have broughtinto this Account, all that was voluntarily laid out by them for the repair-ing and beautifying of their Churches, in what other kind soever.
As to the Town of Ipjwich he further faith, that in a Petition which theysent to the King, then being about Tudbury, (whereunto his Majesty gave>Answer at Woodstock, when this Defendant was not present in his Majesty’sAttendance) the first Head thereof was, a Complaint against this Defendantand the Officers of the Jurisdiction, for putting the Petitioners to Charges, incausing some Chancels to be adorned, and divers Pews to be removed oraltered. But his Majesty was pleased to mark that Particular with a Cross,and then commanded the Master of the Requests to give the Petitioners noother Answer but this, that his Majesty would hear no more of that Complaint,for there was nothing done in that kind, but what his Majesty expectedshould be done, and well approved of: directing also that the said Petitionshould be delivered to this Defendant, which was done at Oxford within twoDays after: and so Notice was given of the said Answer to this Defendant,both by Sir Edward Powell, and also by the King himself in the hearing ofthe Arch-bissiop.
, And lie humbly hopeth, that the Chancellor and Commissaries, (for Offi-cials there are none belonging to the Bishop) will be able to clear them-selves, from having used any unlawful Courses or unjust Molestations in theseMatters. However the Order for Rails being first given by the Vicar-general, and whatsoever was done therein, being afterwards executed by thethe Chancellor of Norwich , it can in no reason affect or be laid upon this
Dele n-