ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 



months, being succeeded here by Isaac Craven, a man of an entirely different 

 school of thought. Chauncey had been convented before the High Com- 

 mission Court in the spring of 1629-30 for saying in a sermon that idolatry 

 had been admitted into the Church, together with much atheism, popery, 

 Arminianism and heresy.^" Religious opinion at Ware was sharply divided 

 in 1633, and Chauncey seems to have found himself in such continual 

 opposition to Sir Thomas Fanshaw ^^ of Ware Park as to need a special 

 episcopal admonition to be present at the consecration of the domestic chapel 

 of Sir Thomas. In 1633 a general meeting of the parishioners was held, and 

 with the consent of the majority the churchwardens arranged ' that the 

 communion table should be placed in the chancel and a rail set round about 

 it.' The consent of the bishop and his chancellor was obtained, but the 

 plan was strongly opposed by Mr. Chauncey, ' who professed that he would 

 thereupon leave the place, and gave out that the parishioners had set up that 

 rail and bench of purpose to drive him away.'^^ The work was carried out 

 while Chauncey was at his living of Marston St. Lawrence, but Humphrey 

 Packer, a yeoman of Ware, at once journeyed thither with the news. 

 Chauncey returned to Ware and stayed at Packer's house, where he ' used 

 reproachful speeches against the setting up of the rail and bench and the 

 lawfulness thereof, and affirmed that it was an innovation, a snare to men's 

 consciences, superstitious, a breach of the second commandment, an addition 

 to God's worship, and a block in the way of Mr. Craven,' ^' the new vicar. 

 Craven does not seem to have viewed the matter in the same light, for in 

 June 1634 he was associated with Sir Thomas Fanshaw in bringing 

 Chauncey's words to the notice of the Court of High Commission.'" The 

 case dragged on through the following autumn, and it was not until April 

 1635 that witnesses were sworn." Sentence was delivered in November, 

 when the court pronounced Chauncey guilty of contempt of the ' ordinary 

 and the jurisdiction ecclesiastical, and of raising a schism and distraction in 

 the parish of Ware.' Chauncey was suspended until such time as he should 

 make submission in a prescribed form and was condemned in costs.'^ Packer, 

 who had said that the rails could be put to better use in his garden,^' was 

 also condemned in costs and called upon to make submission, while both 

 men were committed until they should find bonds 'in jCi°° apiece for the 

 performance of the order of the court.' '* To his life-long regret Chauncey 

 submitted, and in open court made the prescribed recantation, in which he 

 was made to acknowledge 'that kneeling at the Sacrament was a Lawful and 

 Commendable gesture, that the Rail set up in the chancel with a Bench 

 thereunto annexed, for kneeling at the Holy Communion, was a decent and 

 convenient Ornament,' and further to promise ' never by Word nor Deed to 

 oppose either that, or any other Laudable Right or Ceremony prescribed in 

 the Church of England.'*^ Finally he was dismissed with an exhortation 



26 Rushworth, Hist. Coll. ii (i), 34. 



^ Chauncey, The Retractation of Mr. Charles Chancy, 17. ^^^ Cal. S. P. Bom. 1635-6, p. 123. 



2' Ibid. 1 24. 30 Chauncey, op. cit. Introd. ; S. P. Dom. Chas. I, cclxi, fol. 60 et seq. 



" Cal. S. P. Dom. 1634-5, P- 188. 32 ibid. 



33 According to Chauncey (op. cit. 3 5) Packer said ' of the raile whilst it was in the Joyner's shop ' that 

 if they 'did not like them, hee would buy them for his garden.' 34 (^^/_ 5. />. /)cot. 1635-6, p. 124. 



35 Rushworth, Hist. Coll. ii (i), 316. Chauncey pleaded that he had set up a rail at Marston 

 St. Lawrence {Cal. S. P. Dom. 1635-6, p. 124). For his conduct of the services there see ibid. 1635, 

 pp. 489-90. 



4 337 43 



