[Sidenote: 1643.]
The Long Parliament, almost from the beginning, took ecclesiastical
affairs entirely into its own hands. It assumed control over church
property, not, indeed, touching the rights of Puritan patrons, but
interfering to a large extent with those advowsons and presentations
which belonged to High Churchmen.
As time rolled on, and especially when the war began, not only rights
of this description which had belonged to Royalists were forfeited
entirely; but we may state in passing, that a wholesale sequestration
of property followed, it being then enacted that the estates real
and personal of Bishops, Deans and Chapters, and other persons, who
had either taken up arms against the Parliament, or _contributed aid
or assistance_ to such as did, should be seized, and employed for
the benefit of the Commonwealth.[480] Such nets swept within their
meshes an abundance of spoil. Ecclesiastical corporations and Royalist
nobles, squires, and clergymen, suffered the deprivation not only
of their ancient privileges, but of their property and possessions.
One forfeiture in particular may be mentioned, illustrative of the
control which Parliament assumed over the benefices of the Church. An
ordinance appeared commanding the Archbishop of Canterbury to collate
to benefices such persons, and such persons only, as were nominated
by Parliament.[481] For disobedience to this ordinance he was the
following month wholly suspended from the duties and privileges of
his office. The temporalities of the archbishopric were claimed by
the High Court of Parliament, which ordered that Edward Corbet, a
Puritan clergyman, whom Laud had refused to collate, should be by the
Vicar General inducted to the living of Chartham, in Kent, a benefice
in the Archbishop's gift. The revenues of Deans and Chapters were
collected and administered by committees, who paid such sums to such
persons for such purposes as Parliament might appoint. The system of
pew-rents adopted in some places, like everything else in the Church of
England, now came under Parliamentary control. Numerous benefices had
been vacated through the death or the ejection of incumbents. How were
the vacancies to be filled up? In some instances returned refugees,
who had suffered in the days of Laud, were instituted to the vacant
benefices.[482] Scotch Divines, and ministers of other Protestant
Churches, were also declared eligible for appointment. At the same
time Episcopal ordinations were not nullified, and the validity of all
Presbyterian ordinations, as a matter of course, was acknowledged by a
Presbyterian Parliament.
[Sidenote: _Committees for Ecclesiastical Affairs._]
The Committees for _scandalous_ ministers had early in 1643 been
followed by a Committee for _plundered_ ministers, that title being
used to designate clergymen who had been ejected from their livings
by the Royal army. The Committee for plundered ministers provided
them with relief; and the instruction given to this body directed
their attention to malignant clergymen, holding benefices in and about
town, whose benefices after being sequestered might be appropriated
to ministers of a different character. As the plundered were thus put
in the place of the scandalous, the Committee for the plundered took
cognizance of what had previously been submitted to the Committee
for the scandalous. In July they received power to consider cases
of scandal apart from charges of malignity, and to dismiss those
whose characters would not bear examination. On the 6th of September
the Commons ordered the Deputy-Lieutenants and the Committees
of Parliament, or any five or more of their number, to take the
examinations of witnesses against any ministers who were scandalous in
life or doctrine, and also against any who had of late deserted their
cures or assisted the forces raised against Parliament.[483]
[Sidenote: 1643.]
This order, upon being examined, shews that subordinate authorities
were appointed to co-operate with the superior one--that they were
commissioned to discharge magisterial functions in the provinces by
collecting evidence, which they were required to transmit to the
Committee sitting in London. It is also obvious that this parent
Committee itself stood in the same relation to Parliament as other
Committees, and that its business was to communicate information
to the House, not to exercise any independent control. A very
notable puritan phenomenon is this often-vilified body, with its
manifold provincial ramifications. Persons may fairly object to
Parliament men being invested with such ecclesiastical powers, and
they may also consistently complain of the innovations made by such
an arrangement upon the ancient ecclesiastical system of England;
but nobody can charge this Committee with setting to work in an
unbusiness-like manner, or with acting in an arbitrary and impulsive
way. No sinecurists--anything but idle--toiling day by day, and that
for several hours together, they did their work from beginning to
end by line and rule. No committee ever proceeded with more order
and with greater regularity. They had definite principles of action,
and they carefully followed them. The minutes which they kept, with
the signatures of the chairmen, are still extant,[484] and speak for
themselves.
Therein we see how one day they resolved to report to the House the
conclusions at which they had arrived, and the course which they
recommended to be pursued; and how, another day, they finally declared
what should be done "by virtue of an order of both Houses."
Dipping into these records, we find the Committee resolving upon the
augmentation of poor livings. For example, £8 payable to Ussher, Bishop
of Carlisle, out of the impropriate tithes of Allhallows, Cumberland,
and the further annual sum of £20, out of the impropriate tithes
forfeited by a delinquent, are granted, March 3rd, 1646, for the
purpose of increasing the stipend of such minister as the Committee
should approve to officiate in the church of Allhallows. A grant of
£40, out of a Papist's impropriation, is made on the 15th of July,
1646, for the maintenance of a minister to a chapelry in Lancashire,
subject to the approbation of the Divines appointed by ordinance of
Parliament for examination of ministers in that county. The incomes
of several vicarages are noticed as augmented by grants out of
forfeited revenues. Grants also appear for weekly lectures by assistant
ministers; for instance, at Tamworth, "by reason of the largeness
of parish, and the concourse thereto from other places." A petition
to the Committee for sequestration which met at Goldsmiths' Hall is
reported as coming from the parish of Benton, and from two contiguous
chapelries, complaining that there was but one minister for all those
places, and that he was a reader and an alehouse keeper; and also
stating that, by reason of the corruption of Episcopacy, only £10 a
year out of the glebe lands and tithes had been paid to a curate, who,
on account of his poverty, was constrained to keep an alehouse.
[Sidenote: _Tithes._]
[Sidenote: 1644.]
Tithes, of course, were payable when harvest came. Each rector
would, as of old, have the right of sending an agent among the corn
shocks, that he might affix to every tenth some twig or other sign of
ecclesiastical appropriation. But the revolution at the commencement
of the civil wars had thrown into jeopardy such ecclesiastical claims.
Not only could the farmer then, as always, expose the rector to damage
and loss, but he could also successfully resist the setting out and
appropriation altogether. Greater hazard still, perhaps, attached to
the demand "of rates for tithes;" and altogether it is plain that the
distress of the clergy must in some cases have been very great.[485]
Consequently, on the 8th of November, 1644, Parliament issued an
ordinance stating, that there remained not any such compulsory means
for recovery of tithes by ecclesiastical proceedings as before had
been the case; and the remedy now provided was to make complaint to
two justices of the peace, who were authorized to summon the person
complained of, and after examination on oath, to adjudge the case with
costs; a method which, at least for its simplicity and summariness,
presented a striking contrast to all previous modes of procedure in
ecclesiastical or civil courts. In case of non-payment, distraint
might be made by order of the justices, and if there remained nothing
available for that purpose, the defaulter could be committed to
prison.[486] The city of London was exempted from the operation of the
ordinance, an exemption afterwards repealed. We may add that vicars
probably would be exposed to special inconvenience in collecting their
small tithes, whilst their incomes, even when fully paid, would in many
cases be very inconsiderable. Hence, on turning over the Parliament
Journals, we find orders given for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to
consider how poor vicarages and cures could be raised to a competent
maintenance out of Cathedral revenues and impropriate parsonages.
We may further observe that in the Norwich Corporation Records there
are numerous entries illustrating the ways in which local Committees
co-operated with the Committee at Westminster, for uniting parishes,
enquiring into cathedral revenues, and supporting city clergymen.
The House however was not content to leave all the details of
ecclesiastical business even to their own farreaching and laborious
Commissioners, but Argus-eyed, and Briareus-handed, looked into and
managed almost everything itself.[487]
[Sidenote: _Church and Parliament._]
Although Parliament claimed the absolute right to control benefices,
there were some things needful for the induction of clergymen
which could not be comprehended within the range of Parliamentary
functions. Ministers already accredited, having received Episcopal
or Presbyterian orders, found no difficulty in the way of collation;
but what method was to be pursued relative to ministerial candidates
still unordained? To meet this difficulty the Westminster Assembly
recommended the temporary appointment of committees for the ordination
of ministers--only their temporary appointment--for whenever
Presbyterianism should be fully established, then the Church would of
course do all things after a Presbyterian fashion. Yet not without
difficulty did the Divines reach a conclusion on this subject, as the
Independents and Presbyterians differed to some extent respecting the
nature of ordination.
[Sidenote: 1644.]
[Sidenote: _Church and Parliament._]
The entire control of Church temporalities centred in Parliament.[488]
The arrangement had great inconvenience. How such a scheme (had
it continued) would have worked in the long run, may be conjectured
from the contests inevitably arising, whenever the civil and sacred
authorities have come into such close connexion. The quarrels of
Hildebrand and Henry IV. are but conspicuous, perhaps extreme
illustrations, of what naturally results from an intimate alliance
of two such powers as Church and State when guided by different
impulses. Only so long as sympathy prevailed between the two bodies at
Westminster could coincident authority continue. The moment that any
change of feeling arose between them, their co-operation would be at an
end. The temporary rules which were adopted with regard to ordination
were the same as those established with a view to permanence the year
following.[489] They required candidates to take the covenant, to
undergo an examination in religion and learning, and to prove a call
to the ministry. If the candidate happened to be deficient in Hebrew,
Greek, and Latin, he had severer tests applied to his knowledge of
logic and philosophy. But the machine did not always work smoothly.
For example, the Committee for plundered ministers sequestered a Mr.
Leader, vicar of the parish of Thaxted, in Essex, and settled in
his room a Mr. Hall. The patroness, Lady Maynard, would not present
Mr. Hall, and preferred to appoint a Mr. Croxon, a man represented
as notorious for drunkenness and profanity. Articles accordingly
were exhibited against the latter, in consequence of which Croxon
was sequestered. Lady Maynard being allowed again to nominate, the
well-affected parishioners protested against the concession of that
privilege. The Commissioners, however, stood by her ladyship's rights
as patroness, and she now recommended another person of the same name
as before. But on his being submitted to the Assembly, they would not
sanction his appointment. Three times they declined, and the Lords
approved of the refusal, yet after all, in some clandestine way, the
candidate obtained an order for induction. This person, whom the
Divines pronounced the most troublesome they ever had to do with, came
to Thaxted Church, and insisted upon preaching. The sequestrators stood
at the door of the desk to prevent his doing so; but the mayor and
churchwarden espoused his cause, as did also the rabble of the parish.
The latter assaulted the sequestrators, tore their hair, rent their
neck-bands, and seized their hats and cloaks. "Let them alone," said
the mayor, "and let the women decide the case." This fray in the parish
church ended in the commitment of parson, mayor, and town-clerk to
prison, "whence they were released on submission." This case gives us a
curious insight into the local church politics of those days.[490]
[Illustration]