A HISTORY OF NORFOLK 



the rest ; but they went out of the church and would not stay. As for 

 Slyming and Frowar, he never heard of them, and Edmund Day is long 

 since dead. He denied that he did not allow the ministers to expound or 

 open the catechism to the people, but stated that he directed that the cate- 

 chism should be performed according to the catechism of the Church of 

 of England only, the great variety used being very distracting. He be- 

 lieved that no man was ever deprived for not reading the Book of 

 Sports. As to ringing : the difference between bell-ringing, when there 

 should be sermon or only prayers, had led to men coming only to sermon and 

 not to prayers, and therefore he had enjoined no difference should be made ; 

 in which matter he considered he used a lawful discretion. He described 

 the prayers used when not out of the Prayer Book ; how some prayed for 

 holy Machiavelism, some traduced the king and queen, etc. As to Knat- 

 shall he knows nothing, but the wearing of hood and surplice is no innova- 

 tion, and has always been done at the cathedral, Wilby, Walsingham, etc. 

 Mr. Scot was under suspension when the bishop came to the diocese : at his 

 first court he absolved him for three months ; after that had him forborne for 

 six months more ; after that for eight or nine months longer ; and had 

 various letters from Mr. Scot expressing great acknowledgement of the favour, 

 etc. Master William Powell was suspended for many defects against the 

 canons, and had absolution soon after granted. Mr. Richard Raymond, the 

 same. Mr. John Carter, curate in Norwich, of whom he had a good opinion 

 till a succession of letters from his chancellor told him otherwise in 1636, he 

 referred to his chancellor. Mr. Robert Kent, he finds, was a minister in Nor- 

 wich now dead, whom the chancellor on one occasion suspended about ten 

 in the forenoon, and absolved about three in the afternoon, he not paying a 

 penny fee for his dismission. Mr. Broom, curate in Norwich, fell under 

 censure, was soon restored, and had licence per totam diocesen. Mr. Mott was 

 suspended for direct detects and contumeliousness. Mr. William Bridge, 

 being before in some intention to leave Norwich, was excommunicated for 

 not appearing at the visitation (in which he was presented for very dangerous 

 doctrines), and so presently departed to Holland. Yet was he after ten 

 months' expectation restored again in the person of his proctor. But then, 

 having left two cures all the while unprovided for, was in public form of 

 law cited to residence, and not yet coming was expected near ten months 

 more, and then the chancellor pronounced sentence of deprivation against 

 him, as the law required, for desertion of his churches. Mr. Thomas Allen 

 would not appear at the visitation and was excommunicated, then came into 

 court and tendered a libel of defamation and defiance against all ecclesiastical 

 government, and so absented himself for many months, was therefore cited 

 to residence and deprived. Mr. John Ward of Norwich was excommuni- 

 cated, cited, expected, and deprived for non-residence. Mr. Robert Peck 

 was deprived for non-residence after a year's expectation ; it also appears by 

 the records of this house, that Peck had been complained of by the justices 

 to the bishop for misdemeanours, and that annis 1615, 1617, 1622, he was 

 convicted for inconformity, simony, and non-residence. Mr. Jeremiah 

 Burroughs and Mr. William Greenhill were deprived for non-residence. 

 Mr. Edmund Calamy was never under any censure, but came to defendant two 

 or three times in Suffolk and was very welcome to him ; Bishop Mountague 



288 



