ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 



whereby some of them were forced to go beyond the sea ; ' that he had caused 

 Mr. Edmund Calamy and others to leave the diocese ; that he employed for 

 his commissioners, Rural Deans, etc., men he knew to stand affected to his ) 

 innovated courses and to popish superstition, as Mr. John Nowell, Edmond 

 Mapletoft, John Dunkin, Bonck, Dun, etc. 



In his defence,^ the bishop among other things says that at St. Mar- 

 garet's, Lynn, the chancel was obscured by the erection of some seats with 

 steps thereunto of a great height ; the chancellor of Norwich at one visita- 

 tion gave order they should be altered ; then the mayor and others came to 

 petition that the seats might remain as they were, and the chancel be raised, 

 and this was done. That he had not ordered all pews to be altered that 

 they might kneel with their faces altar-wise, but had made an inquiry with 

 a view to checking abuses in pewing which had resulted from private in- 

 dividuals being allowed to build according to their own fancy. He denies 

 that he in 1636 ordered the communion table to be set at the east end of 

 the chancel, or that he ever used the word altar in any of his articles or 

 directions ; but says that he had even permitted the removal of the table at 

 communion time for more convenient hearing or communicating, as at 

 Yarmouth where, although there was a rail by the vicar-general's appoint- 

 ment, he had given order that the communion table should always stand 

 without and beneath the said rail ; that rails and inclosures before the com- 

 imunion table were not a thing newly or of late taken up, but necessary for 

 preservation from defilement, etc. ; and also, that in visitation, he had often 

 given instruction where to stand if any church were over large. That in all 

 other reformed churches the communicants come to the table, which is the 

 most convenient way, and avoids such mischances as might occur in carry- 

 ing the sacrament to private seats. Also this has been the practice time out 

 ■of mind, as at St. Michael's Coslany and elsewhere. Likewise that by his 

 letters, once and again, he advised his chancellor not to cite or call into the . 

 court those that abode in the chancels and would not come up to the rail 

 (7 May, 1637, and 23 May, 1637). That he excommunicated no man for 

 not receiving ; nor doth he believe that any of them which are named 

 in this article were excommunicated while he was bishop in Norwich. He 

 therefore refers to the acts of court, as being informed that Fisher was 

 never at all cited. Also that Newton, Bedwell, and Duncan were invited by 

 the minister to come into the chancel, but they would not ; whereupon he 

 told them that he would come down to them after he had administered to 



' B. M. Pamphlets, E. i68 (24). Mr. William Bridge, Mr. Jeremy Burrowes, Mr. Thos. Allen, Mr. John 

 Ward, and others of Norwich. It is noteworthy that this document, which leaves nothing unsaid of what might 

 be supposed, or imagined to be the cause of any action of the bishop's, is content, when it comes to matters of 

 ■fact, to fill up its lists, where the same names appear again and again under fresh accusations, with such vague 

 phrases as ' and some otherwise troubled,' ' and others,' ' and many more.' As it even goes so far as to state 

 that the death of Mr. Thomas Scot, minister of Norwich, which took place long after the bishop left the diocese, 

 was in all probability to be traced to his persecution, no physical punishment being alleged, and he was in 

 trouble in l62I,when Locke wrote to Carleton that he was sent for concerning ' the discourse,' and had 

 gone away, it was thought into Holland (S.P. Dom. cxix, 99, Feb. 16) ; and in 1622 the same correspondence 

 mentions th.it the bishop of Norwich has introduced Mr. Scot's brother to the archbishop of Canterbury, who 

 promises him to favour his brother {S.P. Dom. cxxxiv, 20, 20 Nov. 1622), it is hardly to be supposed that 

 .any name of which his accusers had actual knowledge would have been omitted. Blomefield, Hist, of Norf. 

 (iii, 379), says that Francis Briggs, late of Honingham, clerk, curate of Barnham, Broom, and Welbourn, was 

 -deprived and degraded by the bishop of Norwich, 29 July, 1637, being convicted of wilfully murdering 

 Rebecca Hunt, his servant, and was executed. Even the bishop's enemies must have allowed this punishment 

 •to be merited. ' Wren, Parentalia, 74-100. 



287 



