Articles of impeachment of the Commons assembled in Parliament in the name of themselves, and of all the Commons of England : against Matthew Wren doctor in divinitie, late Bishop of Norwich, and now Bishop of Ely, for severall crimes and misdemeanors committed by him, when he was Bishop of Norwich.

Articles of impeachment of the Commons assembled in Parliament in the name of themselves, and of all the Commons of England : against Matthew Wren doctor in divinitie, late Bishop of Norwich, and now Bishop of Ely, for severall crimes and misdemeanors committed by him, when he was Bishop of Norwich.

Table of contents

Title page

Articles of impeachment against Matthew Wren Doctor in Divinitie, late Bishop of Norwich, and now Bishop of Ely.

I.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

X.

XI.

XII.

§

§

[Page]

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, OF THE COMMONS Assembled in PARLIAMENT in the name of themselves, and of all the Commons of ENGLAND, Against Matthew Wren Doctor in Divinitie, late Bishop of Norwich, and now Bishop of Ely, for severall crimes, and misdemeanors committed by him, when he was Bishop of Norwich.

Printed, Anno 1641.

Articles of impeachment against Matthew Wren Doctor in Divinitie, late Bishop of Norwich, and now Bishop of Ely.

[Page]

[Page]

THat the said Matthew Wren, being Popishly and superstitiously affected, did at his first coming to be Bishop of Norwich, which was in the yeer 1635. endeavour by sundry wayes, and means, to suppresse the powerfull and painfull Preaching of the Word of God; did introduce divers orders, and Injunctions, tending to superstition and Idolatry; did disturb, and disquiet the orderly, and settled estate of the Ministers, and people, and Churches of that Diocesse, to the great prejudice of His Majesty, the great grief and disquiet, and hazard of the estates, consciences, and lives of many of His Majesties Loyall Subjects there, to the manifest bringing in, and increasing of prophanesse, ignorance, and disobedience in the Common people, (as by the particulars ensuing may appear.)

I.

Whereas many Chancels of Churches, during all the time of Queen Elizabeth, King Iames, and of his Majesty that now is, had laid and been continued [Page] even, and flat, without any steps ascending cowards the East-end of the same, and are by the Rubrick in the Book of Common-prayer, ordered to continue as they were, and so ought to have continued. He of his own minde and will, without any lawfull warrant or authority, in the yeer 1636. being then Bishop of Norwich, ordered and enjoyned, that the same should be raised towards the East-end, some two, some three, some foure steps, that so the Communion Table there placed Altarwise, might be the better seen of the people.

II.

He in the same yeer 1636. ordered, That the Communion Table which is appointed by the said Rubrick, at the time of the celebration of the holy Communion, to be placed in the Body of the Church or Chancell, where Divine Prayers are usually read, and where the people might best hear, should be set up close under the Wall at the East-end of the Chancell Altarwise, and not to be removed from thence; whereby the Minister, who is by the Law to officlate at the Northside of the Table, must either stand and officiate at the North-end of the Table so standing Altarwise, or else after the Popish and Idolatrous manner, stand and officiate at the Westside of the Table with his back towards the people.

III.

He in the same yeer 1636. enjoyned that there should be a Rayl set on the top of the new raised steps before the Communion Table so set Altarwise as aforesaid, which Rayl should reach from the Southside of the Chancell to the North within, which the Minister onely should enter, as a place too holy for the people; and some of the people were punished for stepping into it, as namely Daniel Whayman, and others.

[Page]

IV.

The more to advance blinde superstition, he in the same yeer 1636. ordered that all the Pewes in the Churches should be so altered, that the people might kneel with their faces Eastward, towards the Communion Table so set Altarwise as aforesaid; And that there should be no seats in the Chancell above, or on either side even up with the said Table.

V.

He in the same yeer 1636. enjoyned that every Minister after he had finished the reading of some part of the Morning-Prayer, at the Desk, should go out from the same to the holy Table set Altarwise, as to a more holy place and there, when no Communion was to be administred, read at the said Table a part of the Communion Service, now commonly called the second Service, whereby the consciences both of the Minister, and people, have been not onely very much offended, and grieved, but also the Service it self was made very unprofitable to the people, who could not hear what was said, or prayed in that place.

VI.

That both he in his own person, his Chaplains, and others of the Clergy, as namely, Master John Novell, Master William Guest, Master John Dunckon, and others following his example, did ever after the Table was so set Altarwise, use and perform such, so many, and so frequent bowing, and adorations before, and towards the said Table as have been dangerous examples to draw others to the like superstitious gestures, and have given great scandall, and offence to the sound, sincere, and well affected Christians.

[Page]

VII.

He in the said yeer 1636. enioyned all the people to come up to the Rayl to receive the holy Communion, and there kneel, and do reverence before the holy Table placed Altarwise▪ And gave directions to the Ministers, not to administer the Communion to such people as should not so come up, and do such reverence as aforesaid, And that the Minister should within the Rayl deliver the Bread to such people onely as should so come up and kneel before the said Table as aforesaid. This was to the offence of the consciences of many good people, who for fear of Idolatry and superstition, durst not come to kneel at the said Rayl before the Table so placed Altarwise; and many people not coming up thither, though presenting themselves upon their knees in the Chancell, have not had the Communion delivered unto them, and afterward for not receiving have been excommunicated, as namely. John Shyming, Samuel Dunckon, Peter Fisher, Thomas Newton, Edward Bedwell, Edmund Day, John Frowar, and many others.

VIII.

He did in the said yeer 1636. enjoyn and command that there should be no Sermons on the Lords dayes in the afternoon, or on the week dayes at all, without his Licence. And also enjoyned that there should be no Catechising, but onely such questions, and answers, as are contained in the Book of the Common prayer. Not allowing the Ministers to expound or open the points of the same to the people. He and his under officers affirming in publike places, that such an exposition might be as ill as a Sermon. And the more to hearten, and confirm the people in prophaning the Lords day, He enjoyned the Ministers to read publikely in their Churches, a Book published touching sports on the [Page] Lords Day. For not reading whereof, some Ministers were by the command and directions of the said Bishop suspended, viz. Maker William Leigh, Mr Richard Proud, Mr Jonothan Burr, Mr Matthew Brownrigg, Mr Mott, and divers others, some deprived, Master Powell, Mr Richard Raymond, Mr Jeremy Borrowes, and some otherwise troubled. By all which, knowledge was suppressed, and ignorance and prophannesse introduced in that Diocesse.

IX.

There having been formerly two kinds of ringing of Bels, and calling people to the Church in that Diocesse (viz.) one kinde, when there were onely Prayers to be read, and another kinde, when there were both Prayers to be read, and a Sermon preached, whereby the people did apply themselves to the Service of God in those places, where both Prayers, and Preaching was to be; He to hinder the people in their good desires of serving of God, and edifying their soules, did in the same yeer 1636. command, and enjoyn that there should be no difference in ringing of Bels to Church when there was a Sermon, and when there was none.

X.

Whereas many godly Ministers for the preventing of the great sinne in the people of unworthy receiving the holy Communion of the Lords Supper, did use to preach two or three dayes before every Communion, a preparation Sermon to prepare, and instruct the people in the right and worthy receiving of the Communion, He the said Bishop did in the said yeer 1636. forbid Ministers to preach any such preparation Sermon in that Diocesse, as namely, Master Devereox, Master Swayn, and other Ministers.

[Page]

XI.

Whereas all Gods Ordinances are sanctified, and made fruitfull by the blessing of God upon them by Prayer. He endeavouring to suppresse the power, and benefit of Prayer in the yeer 1636, enjoyned that no Minister should use any prayer before his Sermon, but move the people to pray onely in the words of the fifty fifth Canon made Anno Dom. 1603. which Canon was not warranted by the Law. And that no prayer should be used before or after the Sermon. And he in his own person having been at the Sermon in the Town of Ipswich when the Preacher did use or make any other prayer, did sit upon his seat withont using, or giving any reverence of kneeling, or otherwise, thereby to discountenance such prayer. And he in the said yeer 1636. enjoyned that no prayer should be made in the Pulpit for the sick, and that such as were prayed for in the reading Desk, should be prayed for onely in the two Collects prescribed for the visitation of the sick in private houses.

XII.

He the more to alienate the peoples heart from hearing of Sermons in the said yeer 1636. commanded, and enioyned all Ministers to preach constantly in their hood, and Surplice, a thing not used before in that Diocesse, and much offensive to the people as a scandalous innovation. And the Parishioners of Knattshall wanting a Surplice, he did by his Officers in the yeer 1637. enioyn the Churchwardens there, that no prayers should be read in that Church till they had got a Surplice, which they not getting for the space of two Lords dayes after, had no prayers during that time there.

[Page]

13. That during the time of his being Bishop of Norwich, which was about two yeares, and foure moneths, There were for not reading the second service, at the Communion Table set Altarwise, for not reading the booke of sports, for using conceived prayers before and after Sermons, And for not observing some other illegall innovations by him, and his under-officers, by and upon his directions, and Injunctions, sundry Godly painfull preaching ministers, that is to say, Master William Powell, Master Iohn Carter, Master Robert Peck. Master William Bridge, Master William Greene, Master Mott, Master Richard Raymond, Master Thomas Scot, Master Greenehill, Master Nicholas Beard, Master Hudson, Robert Kent, Jeremy Burrow, Master Thomas Allen, and others to the number fifty, were excommunicated, suspended, or deprived and otherwise censured, and silenced, to the undoing of many of them, their wives, and children, and they could not be absolved without giving promise to conforme to his directions editis & edendis, by meanes whereof some ministers were enforced to depart this Realme into Holland, and other parts beyond Sea, viz. the said Mr. William Bridge, Mr. Ieremy Borrowes, Mr. Thomas Allen, Mr. Iohn Ward, and others of Norwich, to remove into other more peaceable diocesses, as namely Mr. Edmund Calamy, Mr. Broome, Mr. Beard and others, and some of them so prosecuted, as hath beene suspected to bee the Cause of their deathes, as namely Mr. Thomas Scot and others; the terror of which proceedings hath caused other ministers to leave their Cures, and goe away, viz. Mr. William Kirington, Mr. Thomas Warren, Master Iohn Allen and others; and if a stranger preached at the Cure of such person suspended, the Church-wardens permitting such person so to preach, were enjoyned pennance, and otherwise troubled, as namely the Church-wardens of Snailwell, and the stranger for preaching, was also therefore molested, viz, Mr. [Page] Ash, Mr. Eades, Master Manning, and other Ministers.

14. That during the time he was Bishop of the said See of Norwich, hee did unlawfully compell the inhabitants of the severall parishes, within that Dioces, to raise the flowers of the Chancells, of their respective Churches, to raile in their Communion Tables, to remove the Pewes and Seats, and to make other alterations in the respective Churches; in the doing whereof the said inhabitants, were put to great excessive, and unnecessary charges and expences, amounting in the whole, to the summe of five thousand pounds, and upwards, which said charges and expences, he did by unlawfull meanes and courses, enforce the said inhabitants to undergoe; And such of the said inhabitants, as did not obey the same, hee did vex, trouble and molest by presentments, Citation, excommunications, tedious, and frequent Journeyes, and by attendances at the Courts of his Chancellor, and other his officialls, viz. the Church-wardens of Lin, Ipswich, S. Edmunds Bury, and others.

15. That for not comming up to the raile, to receive the holy communion, kneeling there before the table Altarwise, for not standing up at the Gospell, and for not observing and performing of his unlawfull innovations, and Injunctions, many other of his Majesties subjects viz. Peter Fisher, Samuel Duncon, Iames Percivall, Iohn Armiger, Thomas King and others, have beene by him, his Chancellors, Visitors, Commissaryes, and Officialls by his command and injunctions, much molested, disquieted, and vexed in their estates and consciences by Citations to the Courts, long attendance there, dismission, Fees, Excommunications, Penancies, and other Censures.

16. That by reason of the rigorous prosecutions, and [Page] dealings in the last precedent Articles mentioned, and by reason of the continuall superstitious bowing to, and afore the table set Altarwise, the suspending, silencing, driving away of the painfull preaching Ministers, the suppressing, and forbidding of Sermons, and prayer; the putting downe of Lectures, the suppressing meanes of knowledg, and salvation, and introducing ignorance, superstition, & prophanenesse, many of his Majesties subjects, to the number of three thousand, many of which used trades of spinning, weaving, knitting, and making of Cloth, and Stuffe, Stockings, and other manufactures of Woolls, that is to say, Daniell Sunning, Michaell Metcalfe, Iohn Berant, Nicholas Metcalfe, Iohn Derant, Busby widdow Mapes, Richard Cock, Iohn Dicks, Francis Lawes, Iohn Senty and many others, some of them setting an hundred poore people on worke, have removed themselves, their families, and estates into Holland, and other parts beyond the Seas, and there set up and taught the Natives there, the said manufactures, to the great hinderance of trade in this kingdome, and to the impoverishing, and bringing to extreame want, very many who were by those parties formerly set on worke, to the great prejudice of his Majestie and his people.

17. That hee the said Bishop, finding the people to distaste his innovations hath often in publike, and private speeches declared in the said yeare▪ 1636. That what hee did in the same, was by his Majesties command, whereby he contrary to the duty of his place, which he held under his Majestie, being Deane of his Majesties Royall Chappell, and contrary to the duty of a good and loyall subject, endeavoured to free himselfe of blame, and to raise an ill opinion of his Royall Majestie, in the hearts of his loving subjects.

18. That he the said Matthew Wren, being Bishop [Page] of Norwich in the said yeare, 1636. in the Tower Church in Ipswich, and other places, did in his owne person use superstitious and idolatrous actions, and gestures, in the administration of the Lords supper, consecrating the bread, and wine, standing at the West side of the Table with his face to the East, and his back towards the people elevating the Bread, and Wine, so high as to bee seene over his shoulders bowing low, either to or before them, when he after the elevation, and consecration, had set them downe on the Table.

19. That he the more to manifest his Popish affection in the said yeare 1636, caused a Crucifix, that is to say, the figure of Christ upon the Crosse to be engraven upon his Episcopall Seale besides the Armes of the See.

20. That he hath chosen & imployed such men to be his Commissioners, Rurall Deanes, and to be his household Chaplaines, whom he knew to be, and stand affected to his innovated courses, and to popish superstition, and to be erroneous, and unsound in judgement and practise, as namely M. Iohn Nouel, M. Edmond Mapletoft, M. Iohn Dunkin, M. Bouck, M. Dun, and others.

21. That he hath very much oppressed divers Patrons of Churches by admitting without any colour of title his owne Chaplaines and others whom he affected into Livings, which became void within his Dioces, unjustly enforcing the true and right Patrons to long and chargeable suits to evict such Incumbents, and to recover their own right, some of which he did against his Priestly word given to the said Patrons or their friends in verbo Sacerdotis not to do the same. This he did in the case of one M. Rivet.

22. That he and others in the yeare 1635, sould, or [Page] granted away the profits of his Primary Visitation for five hundred pounds over and above the charges of the Visitation, and for the better benefit of the Farmer, set forth a book in the yeare 1636 intituled Articles to be inquired of within the dioces of Norwich, in the first Visitation of Matthew Lord Bishop of Norwich, consisting of 139 Articles, and wherein are contained the number of eight hundred ninety seven questions, according to all which, the Churchwardens were inforced to present upon paine of perjury. And some Churchwardens, that is to say, Robert Langley, Charles Newton, Richard Hart, William Bull, and Zephany Ford, and others not making presentments accordingly, were cited, molested, and troubled, and injoyned pennance; notwithstanding many of the said Articles were ridiculous and impossible.

23. That the Churchwardens, and other men sworne at the Visitation, were inforced to have their presentments written by Clarks specially appointed by such as bought the said Visitation, to whom they paid excessive summes of money for the same, some two and twenty shillings, as namely, Richard Hurrell, Iohn Punchard, and others, some more, some lesse, for writing one presentment, to the grievous oppression of his Majesties poore subjects in that dioces.

24. Whereas by the Lawes of this Realme no tythes ought to be paid out of the rents of houses, nor is there any custome or usage in the City of Norwich for such payment, yet the said Bishop indeavoured to draw the Citizens, and other inhabitants within the said City against their wils and consents to pay two shillings in the pound in liew of the tithes of houses within the severall Parishes of the said City, unto the Ministers there, of the said respective parishes. And the better to effect this his [Page] unjust resolution, he did by false and undue suggestion in the fourteenth yeere of his Majesties reigne that now is, procure his Majestie to declare under his Highnesse great Seale of England his royall pleasure, That if any person, within the said City shall refuse to pay according to the said rate of two shillings the pound unto the Minister of any Parish within the said City, That the same be-heard in the Court of Chancery, or in the Consistory of the Bishop of Norwich. And that in such case no prohibition against the said Bishop of Norwich, their Chancellors, or Commissaries in the said Courts of Consistory be granted. And if any such writ be at any time obtained, the Judges so granting the same, upon sight of his Highnesse said Order shall forthwith grant a consultation to the Minister desiring the same with his reasonable costs and charges for the same▪ which said order and decree under the great Seale of England tended to the violation of the oathes of the Judges, and was devised, contrived, and made by the said Bishop. And afterwards by his evill counsels and false surmises he did obtaine his Majesties royall consent thereunto & by colour of the order aforesaid, and other the doings of the said Bishop, the Citizens and inhabitans of Norwich aforesaid, viz. Iohn Collar, Iudith Perkeford, and others, have beene inforced to pay the said to shillings in the pound in liew of tythes, or else by suits and other undue meanes beene much molested, and put to great charges and expences, contrary to the law, and justice.

25. That he assumed to himselfe an arbitrary power to compell the respective parishioners in the said dioces to pay great and excessive wages to parish Clarks, viz. the parishioners of Yarmouth, Congham, Tostock, and others, commanding his officers, that if any parishioner did resuse to pay such wages, they should certifie him their names, and he would set them into the High Commission [Page] Court for example of the rest. And that one or two out of Ipswich might be taken for that purpose.

And the said Commons by protestation saving to themselves the liberties of exhibiting at any time hereafter any other accusation or impeachment against the said Matthew Wren late Bishop of Norwich, and now Bishop of Ely, and also of replying to the answer that he the said Matthew Wren shall make unto the said Articles, or any of them, or of offering proofe of the premisses or any other impeachments or accusations that shall be exhibited by them as the case shal (according to the course of Parliaments) require, do pray that he the said Matth. Wren may be called to answer the said severall crimes, and misdemeanours, and receive such condigne punishment as the same shall deserve, and that such further proceedings may be upon every of them had, and used against him, as is agreeable to law and justice.

FINIS.

Information about this book

Title statement

Articles of impeachment of the Commons assembled in Parliament in the name of themselves, and of all the Commons of England : against Matthew Wren doctor in divinitie, late Bishop of Norwich, and now Bishop of Ely, for severall crimes and misdemeanors committed by him, when he was Bishop of Norwich.

Wren, Matthew, 1585-1667, defendant.

Edition statement

1641

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2005-10 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A38205

ID [STC]

Wing E2525

ID [STC]

ESTC R6057

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

12798484

ID [OCLC]

ocm 12798484

ID [VID]

94024

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A38205)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 94024)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 255:E168, no 11)

Source

— Articles of impeachment of the Commons assembled in Parliament in the name of themselves, and of all the Commons of England : against Matthew Wren doctor in divinitie, late Bishop of Norwich, and now Bishop of Ely, for severall crimes and misdemeanors committed by him, when he was Bishop of Norwich., Wren, Matthew, 1585-1667, defendant., England and Wales. Parliament. House of Commons..

Extent

[15] p.

s.n.]. [London? :: 1641.. (Reproduction of original in Thomason Collection, British Library.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.