THE ECCLESIASTICAL GOVERNMENT OF THE PARISH.
The ecclesiastical administration of the English parish from the
period of the Reformation down to the outbreak of the great Civil War
is a subject which has been much neglected by historians of local
institutions. Yet during the reign of Elizabeth, at least, the church
courts took as large a share in parish government as did the justices
of the peace. Not only were there many obligations enforced by the
ordinaries which today would be purely civil in character, but to
contemporaries the maintenance of the church fabric and furniture
appeared every whit as important as the repairing of roads and
bridges; while the obligation to attend church and receive communion
was on a par with that to attend musters, but with this difference,
that the former requirement affected all alike, while the latter
applied to comparatively few of the parishioners.
In the theory of the times, indeed, every member of the commonwealth
was also a member of the Church of England, and conversely. Allegiance
to both was, according to the simile of the Elizabethan divine, in its
nature as indistinguishable as are the sides of a triangle, of which
any line indifferently may form a side or a base according to the
angle of approach of the observer[1]. The Queen was head of the
commonwealth ecclesiastical as well as of the commonwealth civil, and
as well apprized of her spiritual as of her temporal judges[2]. For
both sets of judges equally Parliament legislated, or sanctioned
legislation. Sometimes, in fact, it became a mere matter of expediency
whether a court Christian or a common law tribunal should be charged
with the enforcement of legislation on parochial matters. Thus the
provisions of the Rubric of the Book of Common Prayer were enforced by
the justices as well as by the ordinaries. Again, secular and
ecclesiastical judges had concurrent jurisdiction over church
attendance, and--at any rate between 1572 and 1597[3]--over the care
of the parish poor. Finally, it must not be supposed that the men who
actually sat as judges in the archdeacon's or the bishop's court were
necessarily in orders. In point of fact a large proportion, perhaps a
large majority of them, were laymen, since the act of Henry VIII in
1545 permitted married civilians to exercise ecclesiastical
jurisdiction.[4]
In the treatment of our subject the plan we shall follow is, first, to
make some preliminary observations as to the times, places and modes
of holding the church courts; second, with the aid of illustrations
drawn from the act-books of these courts, to show how their judicial
administration was exercised over the parish, either through the
medium of the parish officers or directly upon the parishioners
themselves; third, to analyze the means at the command of the
ecclesiastical judges to enforce their decrees; and, finally, to point
out that from its very nature the exercise of spiritual jurisdiction
was liable to abuses, and must at all times have proved unpopular.
Speaking generally (for the jurisdictions called "peculiars" formed
exceptions), England was divided for the purposes of local
ecclesiastical administration and discipline into archdeaconries, each
comprising a varying number of parishes. Twice a year as a rule the
archdeacon, or his official in his place, held a visitation or kept a
general court (the two terms being synonymous) in the church of some
market town--not always the same--of the archdeaconry. The usual times
for these visitations were Easter and Michaelmas. The bishops also
commonly held visitations in person, or by vicars-general or
chancellors, once every third year throughout their dioceses. Yet at
the semiannual visitations of the archdeacon as well as at the
triennial visitations of the bishop, the mode of procedure, the class
of offences, the parish officers summoned, the discipline
exercised--all were the same, the bishop's court being simply
substituted for the time being for that of the archdeacon.
There were other visitations: those of the Queen's High Commissioners,
and those of the Metropolitan. There were a very great number of other
courts, but for the purposes of the every-day ecclesiastical
governance of the parish the two classes of courts or visitations
above mentioned are all that need concern us. It is, however,
important to state, that while churchwardens and sidemen were
_compelled_ to attend the two general courts of the archdeacon (and of
course the bishop's court) and to write out on each occasion formal
lists of offenders and offences ("presentments" or "detections") these
parish officers might also at any time make _voluntary_ presentments
to the archdeacons. Those functionaries, in fact, seem to have held
sittings for the transaction of current business, or of matters which
could not be terminated at the visitation, every month, or even every
three weeks. Others may have sat (as we should say of a common-law
judge) in chambers.[5] Before each general visitation an apparitor or
summoner of the court went about and gave warning to the churchwardens
of some half-dozen parishes, more or less, to be in attendance with
other parish officers on a day fixed in some church centrally located
in respect of the parishes selected for that day's visitation.
The church of each parish was, indeed, not only its place for worship,
but also the seat and centre for the transaction of all business
concerning the parish. In it, according to law, the minister had to
read aloud from time to time articles of inquiry founded on the
Queen's or the diocesan's injunctions, and to admonish wardens and
sidemen to present offences under these articles at the next
visitation.[6] In it also he gave monition for the annual choice of
collectors for the poor;[7] warning for the yearly perambulation of
the parish bounds;[8] and public announcement of the six certain days
on which each year every parishioner had to attend in person or send
wain and men for the repair of highways.[9] In the parish church also
proclamation had to be made of estrays before the beasts could be
legally seized and impounded.[10] Here, too, school-masters often
taught their pupils[11]--unless, indeed, the parish possessed a
separate school-house. Here, in the vestry, the parish armor was
frequently kept, and sometimes the parish powder barrels were
deposited;[12] here too, occasionally, country parsons stored their
wool or grain.[13]
Finally, in the parish church assembled vestries for the holding of
accounts, the making of rates and the election of officers. Overseers
of the poor held their monthly meetings here. Occasionally the
neighboring justices of the peace met here to take the overseers'
accounts or to transact other business;[14] and in the church also
might be held coroners' inquests over dead bodies.[15] Last, but not
least in importance, in the churches of the market towns the
archdeacon made his visitations and held his court; and on these
occasions the sacred edifice rang with the unseemly squabbles of the
proctors, the accusations of the wardens and sidemen or of the
apparitor, and the recriminations of the accused--in short, the church
was turned for the time being into a moral police court, where all the
parish scandal was carefully gone over and ventilated.[16]
The ecclesiastical courts carried on their judicial administration of
the parish largely, of course, through the medium of the officers of
the parish. These were the churchwardens, the sidemen and the
incumbent, whether rector, vicar or curate.[17]
First in importance were the churchwardens. Though legislation
throughout the time of Elizabeth was ever adding to their functions
duties purely civil in their nature, and though they themselves were
more and more subjected to the control of the justices of the peace,
nevertheless it is true to say that to the end of the reign the office
of churchwarden is one mainly appertaining to the jurisdiction and
supervision of the courts Christian.
The doctrine of the courts that churchwardens were merely civil
officers belongs to a later period.[18]
After a churchwarden had been chosen or elected, he took the oath of
office before the archdeacon. In this he swore to observe the Queen's
and the bishop's injunctions, and to cause others to observe them; to
present violators of the same to the sworn men (or sidemen), or to the
ordinary's chancellor or official, or to the Queen's high
commissioners; finally, he swore to yield up a faithful accounting to
the parish of all sums that had passed through his hands during his
term of office.[19]
Before each visitation day, as has been said, the archdeacon's or the
bishop's summoner went to each parish and gave warning that a court
would be held in such and such a church on such and such a day.
Pending that day wardens and sidemen drew up their bills of
presentment. These bills were definite answers to a series of articles
of inquiry founded on the diocesan's injunctions, themselves based on
the Queen's Injunctions of 1559 and on the Canons.[20] Failure to
present offences was promptly punished by the judge.[21] Failure to
attend court when duly warned was no less promptly followed by
excommunication, and then it was an expensive matter for the wardens
to get out of the official's book again.[22] But of fees and fines
more hereafter.
Among the churchwardens' principal obligations, as laid down in the
injunctions and articles they were sworn to observe, was the keeping
in repair of the church fabric and its appurtenances, as well as the
procuring and the maintaining in good condition of the church
"furniture," a term which in the language of the time included all the
necessaries for worship and the celebration of the sacraments: church
linen, surplices, the communion cup, the elements themselves, bibles,
prayer books, the writings of authorized commentators on the
Scriptures, or the works of apologists for the Anglican Church; tables
of consanguinity and other official documents enjoined to be kept in
every parish by the diocesan.[23]
The visitation act-books of the period abundantly show the processes
employed by the ecclesiastical authorities in enforcing these and
other duties (which will be detailed in their turn), and prove that
the courts Christian were emphatically administrative as well as
judicial bodies. To show these courts at work it will be necessary to
give a number of illustrative examples taken from the visitation
entries. Thus the wardens of Childwall, having been presented at the
visitation of the bishop of Chester, 9th October, 1592, because their
church "wanteth reparac[i]on," are excommunicated for not appearing.
On a subsequent day John Whittle, who represents the wardens, informs
the court that the repairs have been executed. Thereupon the wardens
are absolved and the registrar erases the word "excommunicated" from
the act-book.[24] At the same visitation the wardens of Aughton are
presented because "there bible is not sufficient, they want the first
tome of the homilies, Mr. Juells Replie and Apologie[25] [etc.]...."
The two wardens are enjoined by the judge to buy a sufficient bible
and to certify to him that they have done so.
But--so careful is the supervision over parish affairs--mere
certification by vicar or wardens that a certain article has been
procured in obedience to a court order will not always suffice. If the
thing can be produced in court the judge often orders it to be brought
before him for personal inspection. Accordingly, when at the
visitation of the chancellor of the bishop of Durham, the 13th March,
1578/1579, the wardens of Coniscliffe are found to "lacke 2 Salter
bookes [and] one booke of the Homelies," they are admonished to
certify "that they have the books detected 4th April and to bringe
their boks hither."[26] Thus, too, the wardens of St. Michael's,
Bishop Stortford, record in 1585 that they have paid 8d. "when we
brought in to the court the byble and comunion booke to shewe before
the comysary."[27] There is a curious entry in the same accounts some
years earlier, viz.: "pd for showing [shoeing] of an horse when mr
Jardfield went to london to se wether it was our byble that was lost
or no and for his charges...."[28]
At the visitation held at Romford Chapel, Essex Archdeaconry, 5th
September, 1578, the wardens of Dengie "broughte in theire surplice,
which surplice is torne & verie indecent & uncomly, as appereth;
whereupon the judge, for that theie neglected their othes, [ordered
them to confess their fault and prepare] a newe surplice of holland
cloth of v s. thele [the ell], conteyninge viii elles, _citra festum
animarum prox_." Remembering that money was then worth ten to twelve
times what it is today, this was probably considered too great a
burden by the parishioners of Dengie. A petition must have been
presented to be allowed to procure a cheaper surplice, for on the 6th
October following the wardens were permitted to prepare a surplice
containing six ells only at the reduced price of 2s. 8d. per ell.[29]
It seems to have been the practice in the Dean of York's Peculiar for
the judge to threaten the churchwardens occasionally with a fine for
failure to repair their church or supply missing requisites for
service by a fixed day. Thus at Dean Matthew Hutton's visitation,
July, 1568, the churchyards of Hayton and of Belby were found to be
insufficiently fenced. The order of the court was: "_Habent ad
reparanda premissa citra festum sancti Michaelis proximum sub pena XX
s_."[30]
So, too, the Thornton wardens at the same visitation are warned to
repair the body of their church "betwixt this and Michlmes next upon
paine of X s."[31] But as spiritual tribunals had no legal power to
fine[32] or to imprison, apparently the usual penalty prescribed by
the judges in case of disobedience to, or neglect of, their orders to
repair or replace by a certain day, was, in the words of Bishop Barnes
addressed to the churchwardens in Durham diocese, the "paynes of
interdiction and suspencion [_i.e._, temporary excommunication] to be
pronounced against themselves."[33] Yet here, too, the wardens did not
escape indirect amercement, for absolution from interdiction or
excommunication often meant a payment of various court fees, which in
many cases were by no means light. These fines the wardens put to
their credit in the expense items of their accounts if they could
possibly do so, and it is probable that the parish always paid them
except in cases of very gross individual delinquency in office. Thus
the wardens of St. Martin's, Leicester, record: "Payd to Mr.
Comyssarye whe[n] we was suspendyd for Lackynge a Byble & to hys
offycers xxiij d."[34] The wardens of Melton Mowbray register: "Ffor
our chargs & marsements at Lecest[e]r ... for yt ye Rood loft whas not
takyn down & deafasyed iiij s. iiij d."[35]
In the same accounts we find some years later: "Payde to ... at the
vicitacion houlden at Melton for dismissinge us oute of there bookes
for not reparinge the churche iij s. ij d."[36] So, also, we read in
the St. Ethelburga-within-Bishopsgate Accounts: "Paid in D[octor]
Stanhope's courte beinge p[re]sented by p[ar]son Bull aboute the
glasse windowes xvj d." And nine years later: "Paid for Mr Gannett and
myselfe ['Humfery Jeames'] for absolution iiij s. viij d." Also: "Paid
for our discharge at the courte for [from] our excomm[uni]cacon xvj
d."[37]
The act-books abundantly show that ecclesiastical courts were very far
from being limited to mere moral suasion or to spiritual censures.
They could never have accomplished their work so thoroughly if they
had been. This point will be brought out much more clearly, it is
hoped, when we come to consider excommunication as a weapon of
coercion.[38] The courts fined parishioners individually[39] and they
fined them collectively. What matters it that these fines were called
court fees, absolution fees, commutation of penance, or by any other
name? What signifies it that the proceeds could be applied only _in
pios usus_? The mulcting was none the less real. On the score of
bringing stubborn or careless wardens to terms through their purses,
the following extract from a letter written in 1572 to the official of
the archdeacon of the bishop of London is in point. The letter informs
the judge that Jasper Anderkyn, a churchwarden, "hathe done nothing of
that which he was apoinnted by your worshipp at Mydsomer to do, for
the churche yarde lyeth to commons and all other thynkes in the
churche is ondonne.... I praye you dele w[i]t[h] hym so yt he maye be
a presydent for them that shall have the offyce; for they wyll but
jess att itt, and saye it is butt a mony matter: therefore lett them
paye well for the penaltie whiche was sett on theire heads."
Continuing, the writer states that his reason for writing is "that you
be not abewseid in youre office by there muche intreatyng for
themselffes, for Jesper Anderkyn stands excommunicated."[40]
Sometimes for failure to perform the ordinary's[41] injunctions a
whole parish was excommunicated or a church interdicted.[42] Thus in
the Abbey Parish Church[43] Accounts we read under the year 1592 how
troublesome and how costly it was "when the church was interdicted" to
ride to Lichfield and there tarry several days seeking absolution. For
this 20 shillings was paid, a very large sum for the time, not to
mention a fee to the summoner, travelling expenses and the writing of
letters on the parish's behalf.[44] The wardens of Stratton, Cornwall,
had a similar experience "when the churche wardyns & the hole
p[ar]ysch was exco[mu]nycatt" in 1565. Among the expense items
relating to that occasion is a significant one: "ffor wyne & goodchere
ffor the buschuppe ys s[er]vantt[s] ij s. viij d."[45]
So close is the supervision of the ordinary over the churchwardens, so
effective the discipline of the church courts, that we seem to hear
occasionally a sort of dialogue going on between judges and wardens,
the former directing certain things to be executed, the latter
replying and reporting from time to time that progress is being made
on the work to be performed, or that the missing objects will be soon
supplied. Accordingly, at the archdeacon of Canterbury's visitation in
1595, we find the wardens of St. John in Thanet (Margate) reporting:
"The chancel[46] is out of repairs, for the repairing whereof some
things are provided."[47] Two years later they state to the court:
"For repairing of the churchyard we desire a day."[48] At the same
visitation the wardens of St. Lawrence in Thanet (Ramsgate) present:
"Our Church is repaired, saving that some glass by reason of the last
wind be broken, the which are [sic] shortly to be amended."[49]
As a final illustration on this score may be adduced the report of the
conscientious wardens of Kilham, Yorkshire, who certify to the judge
of that peculiar, August, 1602, "that there churche walles ar in suche
repaire as heretofore they have beyne. But not in suche sufficient
repaire as is required by the Article[50] for that effect ministred
vnto us."[51]
But the upkeep of the church and its requisites[52] was only one of
the churchwardens' many tasks. They had to look to it that the people
attended church regularly; that the victuallers and ale-houses
received no one while service was being held or a sermon was preached;
that each person was seated in his or her proper place, that each
conducted himself with decorum and remained throughout the service.
Accordingly the act-books tell their interesting story of ministers on
beginning service sending wardens and sidemen abroad to command men to
come to church. The churchwardens and their allies have all sorts of
experiences: they break in upon "exercises" or conventicles;[53] they
peep in at victuallers' houses or at inns where irate hosts slam doors
in their faces and give them bad words on being caught offending;[54]
they come across merrymakers dancing the morris-dance on the village
green during Sunday afternoon service,[55] or they surprise men at a
quiet game of cards at a neighbor's house during evening prayer.[56]
When admonished by the wardens to enter church, some merely gave
contemptuous replies, such as "what prates thou?";[57] others, when
the wardens approached, took to their heels and ran away.[58] Once
inside the church the wardens' task was by no means ended. They had
the care of placing each one in his or her seat according to
degree;[59] according to sex;[60] and, in case of women, according as
they were old or young, married or unmarried.[61] Finally, as has been
said, the wardens were expected to keep watch lest some one slip out
before the service was over or the sermon ended.[62]
But while they have one eye on the congregation lest they offend,
wardens and sidemen must keep another on the minister while service
proceeds or the sacraments are administered, in order that the rites
be duly observed and the Rubric followed. The curate of Theydon Gernon
(Essex) is presented by wardens and sidemen "_quia non fecit suam
diligentiam in dicendo preces_, viz. the communion and Litany";[63]
while the rector of East Hanningfield in the same archdeaconry is not
only complained of to the ordinary for not maintaining the book of
articles, and not using the cross in baptism, but he is also indicted
on the same occasion for not praying for the Queen "accordinge to hir
injunctions, viz. he leaveth out of hir stile the kingdome of
Fraunce."[64] The court's order was that the rector should acknowledge
his error on the following Sunday "_coram gardianis_." The wardens of
Wilton, Yorkshire, report to the commissary of the Dean of York that
their curate recites divine service "very orderlie," but not at a fit
time, for he holds service at eight in the morning and two in the
afternoon.[65] Finally, the rector of Pitsea is complained against to
the archdeacon of Essex for "that he is unsufficient to serve the cure
ine that theie are not edified by him...."[66]
If the parson neglected his duties it was incumbent upon the wardens
to exhort him to perform them.[67] When at the visitation of the
bishop of Chester in 1592 it was found that there was no surplice at
Bolton Church, Manchester Deanery, not only did the judge admonish one
of the Bolton wardens to buy the surplice, but he was instructed "to
offer hit to thee Vicar at the time of ministering the sacraments, and
to certify of his wearing or refusing of hit before the Feast of the
Nativity of our Lord next."[68]
By virtue of searching articles of inquiry administered to them,[69]
such as, Is your vicar a double-beneficed man, and, if so, is he
lawfully dispensated? Does he keep hospitality?
If non-resident does he give the fortieth part to the poor? Does your
minister wear a surplice at the appointed times, yea or no? Does he
use the cross in baptism and the ring in marriage?[70] Does your
schoolmaster teach without licence of his ordinary under seal, or no?
Do you know any person excommunicate in your parish who repairs to
church? Do you know anyone ordered by law to do penance, or
excommunicate for not doing the same, who still continues
unreformed?--by virtue of this strict questioning by the ordinary put
to them in written articles before each visitation, church wardens,
and their coadjutors, the sworn men or sidemen, were compelled to
exercise a continual supervision over their minister's conduct as well
as over that of the parishioners generally. This fact, coupled with
the circumstance that they were themselves liable to be reported to
the court and punished if they failed to indict, accounts for the
cautious presentments made by these Elizabethan wardens.
Those of Great Witchingham, Norfolk, for instance, inform the
chancellor that their parson "holdeth two benefices, but whether
lawfully dispensated they know not," and they add that a schoolmaster
in their parish "teacheth publicly, but whether licenced or not they
know not."[71] The wardens of Ellerburn, Yorkshire, present Jane Gryme
for fornication, and add "but whether the curate did churche hir or no
they cannot say."[72] And the following year they bring to the court's
knowledge "that their vicar ... is not resident upon his vicaredg, but
what he bestoweth upon the poore they know not."[73] Lastly, the very
prudent wardens of Pickering in the same peculiar bring in their
presentment in this fashion: "_Qui dicunt et presentant_ there vicar
for that he for the moste parte, but not alwaies dothe weare a
surplesse in tyme of dyvyne service. They present there vicar for that
they ar vncerteyne whether his wif[e] was commended vnto him by
justices of peace, nor whether he was licenced to marrye hir according
to hir Maiestie's iniuncions."[74] The almost unseemly interest here
displayed by the wardens in their vicar's matrimonial relations is
explained by the provisions of article xxix of the Queen's Injunctions
of 1559, which ordain that no priest or deacon shall wed any woman
without the bishop's licence and the advice and allowance of two
neighboring justices of the peace first obtained.
Other parish obligations enforced by the courts Christian through the
churchwardens were the keeping of annual perambulations (or, as we
should say today, beating the bounds of the parish) by parson, wardens
and certain of the substantial men of the parish, in the second week
before Whit-Sunday ("Rogation Week");[75] the exhibiting to the
official of the parish register, or the putting in of copies of it
once a year at Easter;[76] the choosing in conjunction with the parson
of collectors for the poor up to 1597, in most parishes at any
rate;[77] the levying of the 12d. fine on all those who absented
themselves from service;[78] the putting down of all "superstitious"
rites in the parish, such as the carrying of banners in perambulation
week or the wearing of surplices on such occasions;[79] the ringing of
the church bells on Hallowe'en, or on the eve of All Souls; excessive
tolling of bells at funerals,[80] etc.
From the point of view of their fellow-parishioners, no doubt, the
most important function of the wardens was that of administering the
parish finances. This subject will be considered at length in the
chapter which follows, but the fact that the spiritual courts enforced
the levying of rates for church repair, etc., through the wardens, as
well as an accounting to the parish of all monies received or
disbursed, concerns us here. When the Ealing wardens were "detected"
to the chancellor of the bishop of London because they had no
pulpit-cloth, no poor-box, nor the Paraphrases of Erasmus, they
appeared and declared in court that they had not provided these things
"nor can do it, for that there is no churche stock wherewith to do
it." Hereupon they were admonished that the judge's pleasure was that
they should procure Mr. Fleetwood and Mr. Knight (evidently two
prominent parishioners) to make an assessment on the parish in order
to purchase these articles, and further that they (the wardens) should
certify to the court at a later day fixed that the rate had been laid
and the missing requisites bought, unless, indeed, some refused to
pay, in which case their names should be handed into court.[81] So,
again, when rector and wardens of Sutton were presented in the same
court for letting their church go to ruin, they protested that the
reason was that £40 "will skant repayre it, and that so mutch cannot
be levied of all the land in the p[ar]ishe." But this excuse was not
for a moment admitted, and they were warned to appear in the next
consistory court to take out a warrant for the assessment of the
lands.[82]
Though the wardens did not themselves in practice always make the rate
directed by the archdeacon, yet they were held responsible for its
making. So true was this that if, after a duly called parish meeting
for the purpose of laying the rate in obedience to the archdeacon's
orders, no parishioners appear, then, in the words of the archdeacon's
official to the wardens of Ramsden Bellhouse (Essex): "if the
inhabitants of the said p[ar]ish will not join with the said church
wardens &c., that then the said churchwardens shall themselves make a
rate for the leveinge of the said charges [etc.] ..."[83]
Finally, the archdeacons or their officials always stood ready to
enforce an accounting by the outgoing wardens to the parishioners or
their representatives. If the accounting was delayed too long, or if
the surplus was not promptly handed over to the incoming (or newly
elected) wardens, then the delinquent officers were cited before the
court. Numerous instances are found in the court records of the
enforcing of this duty. [84]
A permanent parish officer and one over whose appointment the
parishioners had usually no control [85] was the parish minister,
whether officiating rector, vicar or curate. [86] Elizabethan statutes
and canons sought to increase the dignity of the incumbents of cures,
[87] but royal greed did yet more to lower it. [88]
The minister was usually addressed by his parishioners as "Sir" John,
or "Sir" George, etc., quite irrespective of his actual rank,[89] and
this in an age of punctilious distinctions in forms of address. In the
small country parishes the incumbent was often the only, or almost the
only, educated man in the community. His advice had naturally
considerable weight in parish affairs, and his pen was often required
in the drawing up of official or legal documents, certifications or
testimonials, the casting up of parish accounts and the like.[90]
We find in the act-books officiating rectors or vicars presented for
non-residence upon their cures;[91] while rectors and other recipients
of great tithes are "detected" at visitations for not repairing the
chancels in their churches; or not maintaining their vicarage
buildings with barns and dove-cotes;[92] or for not providing quarter
sermons where the clergyman serving the cure was not himself licenced
to preach;[93] beneficed men not resident are arraigned for not giving
the fortieth part of their revenue to the parish poor;[94] resident
ministers indicted for not keeping hospitality,[95] or for not
visiting the sick.[96]
Just as the wardens were to look after the conduct of their minister,
so the minister was required to fill the office of a censor upon the
behavior of the wardens and to report to the ordinary their
delinquencies--as, indeed, the trespasses of any among his
congregation, though the latter task was more particularly assigned to
the wardens and sidemen.[97] Furthermore the minister was the vehicle
through which the commands of the authorities, lay or ecclesiastical,
were conveyed to the parishioners. He was compelled to read these
commands or injunctions at stated times and exhort his hearers to obey
them. For failure to comply with this duty, he might be cited before
the official,[98] and punished by that officer.[99]
The curate of East Hanningfield, Essex, is presented in 1587 for "that
he hathe not geven warninge to the church-wardens to looke to there
dutie in service tyme, for such as are absent from service."[100] The
curate of Monkton, Kent, is brought before the court in 1569 for that
he "doth not call upon fathers and mothers and masters of youths to
bring them up in the fear of God."[101] When the archdeacon sent down
an excommunication against any one of the parish, it was delivered to
the minister to be solemnly proclaimed by him from the pulpit,[102]
and thereafter he had to see that the excommunicate person remained
away from service until absolution was granted[103] by the ordinary,
which absolution was then publicly pronounced from the pulpit.[104]
When penance had to be done in church by an offender, it was the duty
of the parson to superintend the performance; to say, if necessary,
before the congregation the formula of confession prescribed for the
offence, in order that the guilty person might repeat it after
him;[105] to exhort the persons present to refrain from similar
transgressions; to read, on occasion, some homily bearing upon the
subject;[106] and finally to make out a certificate (together with the
wardens, if necessary) that the penance had been carried out as
enjoined by the judge.
Besides the celebration of the rites pertaining to his priestly
office, which need not detain us here, there were many other duties
which the ecclesiastical courts enjoined on the parish incumbent. Some
of these have already been referred to.[107] Others will appear as we
view the discipline of the courts Christian when exercised over the
parishioners at large, to which subject we shall now address
ourselves.
Foremost among the requirements exacted by the ordinaries from all
alike was the duty of attending church. Every one had to frequent
service on Sundays and on feast-days, and to be present at evening as
well as at morning prayer.[108] Nor might a man repair to a church in
another parish because it was nearer than his own.[109] Should his own
minister be unlicenced to preach--and only about one incumbent out of
four or five was licenced[110]--he was not permitted, except under
special authorization,[111] to hear a sermon in another church while
service was going on in his own.[112] If, however, a man were able to
pay the statutory[113] fine of 12d. for each absence on holy days he
could, it would seem, in practice resort to his parish church only on
occasions, say once a month, and yet not get himself written down as a
recusant.[114]
Heads of families were made responsible for the attendance of their
children and servants; innkeepers or victuallers for their
guests.[115]
If it was not permissible to frequent service in another place of
worship, neither was it optional with a parishioner to get married
elsewhere than in his own church.[116] There, too, his marriage banns
had to be published--and it was a presentable offence to marry without
banns;[117] there he had to have his children christened[118] and his
wife churched;[119] there he was compelled to send sons, daughters or
apprentices to be catechized,[120] and there himself learn the
principles of religion (if he were ignorant of them), for without a
knowledge of the Catechism and the Ten Commandments he could not
receive communion.[121]
All persons over fourteen had to receive communion at Easter, and at
least on two other occasions during the year.[122] In fact readiness
to receive according to the Anglican rites became the test of a loyal
subject.[123]
The strict requirement to report all non-communicants to the official
resulted in the keeping of books in which were written the names of
the parish communicants.[124]
Next in importance to church attendance and the observance of the
sacraments came the duty of all parishioners to contribute to the
parish expenses. We have viewed church courts at work, compelling
wardens to levy church rates; we have now to see how the judges forced
recalcitrant ratepayers to pay the sums assessed upon them to the
wardens or other collectors.
Among the earliest vestry minutes of the parish of St.
Christopher-le-Stocks, London, is one which, after ordering that an
assessment be made for the clerk's wages and for pews, decreed that
any rebellious persons should be summoned before themselves, the
vestry, to be reformed. But if the rebel would not appear, or, on
appearance, remain stubborn to reason, then the churchwardens should
sue him before the ordinary at the parish costs "vntill suche tyme as
he be reduced vnto a good order, and hath paid bothe the costys of the
sute and the chargs that he owith vnto the church...."[125] Fifty
years later we find this vestry ordaining the same procedure to be
followed against parish debtors, and referring to its former
order.[126]
It seems, in fact, to have been the well-understood thing that just as
parish rates to defray the costs of those matters of parish
administration, falling within the province of the ecclesiastical
courts, were to be assessed by the authority, and under the direction,
of those courts, so, too, the recovery of these rates was to be had
before the same tribunals. It is not denied that recourse may
occasionally have been made in these matters to the courts of common
law, but it is believed that the proper remedy was at ecclesiastical
law.[127] Furthermore, we believe that the means at the disposal of
the ecclesiastical courts for putting their judgments into effect were
quite sufficient and in practice effective.
What these means were will be taken up and discussed a little further
on. Returning to the matter of suing parish debtors in courts
Christian, it is interesting to find that in the language of the
period a suit "at law" did not always mean at common law. An order of
the vestry of Stepney, London, in February, 1605-6, after determining
the manner in which £50 should be raised to pay off parish debts due
to the bell founder, adds that persons refusing to pay their shares,
or neglecting to do so, should not find themselves aggrieved "if the
same be recouered against them by Lawe." And the meaning of this term
is fully explained by these subsequent words in the same order, that
the churchwardens shall "at the chardg of the p[ar]ish appointe and
entertayne one doctor and a proctor to sue and recouer the same by
lawe of any p[er]son [etc.]."[128] Now doctors and proctors practiced
before ecclesiastical tribunals only.[129]
That presentment to the ordinary was the common and usual way, not
only of recovering church rates, but any thing of value that belonged
to the parish and was unjustly detained, the act-books and other
documents of the time plentifully show. Thus in Archbishop Parker's
Visitation Articles for the diocese of Canterbury in the year 1569, he
requires all churchwardens to report to their ordinaries "whether
there be any money or stoke, appertaininge to any paryshe churche, in
anye manne's handes, that refuse or differeth to paye the same
[etc.]."[130] The wardens of Melton Mowbray record under the year 1602
an item for charges at the court at Leicester against a parishioner
"for not payinge his levi for the churche."[131] Those of Ashburton,
Devon, itemize in 1568-1569 two shillings "for a zytation to those
that wold nott pay to the power."[132] As the wardens of East Tilbury
were going about among the parishioners demanding money of each one
according to the rating inscribed on an assessment roll which they
carried with them, one Garrett, a constable, discontented that he
himself should be rated as high as four shillings, seized the roll and
refused to produce it. This, of course, put an end to further
collections. For this he was presented by the vicar before the
consistory court at Stratford Bow Chapel. Here he alleged that the
rating "was very unequally made." But the judge warned Garrett to
appear in court the following Tuesday to answer for his contempt.
Further he was to pay his four shillings to the wardens and bring to
the judge the wardens' certificate that he had done so. On the day
appointed Garrett was present in court with the vicar and wardens. The
decree of the court is headed: "_Negotiu[m] reparac[i]o[n]is
eccl[esi]e de_ East Tilburie," and is so characteristic of the
thoroughgoing and searching manner in which ordinaries supervised the
administration of parish affairs that we cannot forbear to quote a
large part of it in full. "Touchinge the same Wm Garrett," the
registrar inscribes in the act-book, "the churchwardens do here
testifie that he hathe payd his iiij s. w[hi]ch he was rated at...&
they saye they have receyved it. Towching the churchwardens & the
repayre [of] the church," the scribe continues, "the Judge doth order
that the minister, Mr Howdsworth, [and seven others named, including
wardens, sidemen and constables]...p[ro]cure workmen of all trad[es],
& then sett downe under their hand in writing what chardg it will be
to repayer the church sufficiently in all thing[s] wharein it is
decayd, as namely, tyling, paving, masonns worke, carpenters worke &
glasing...and when they have under the workmens hand founde what will
repayer the churche in every p[ar]ticuler, then shall they all nyne
assemple themselves in the church [on a day named]...and make a rate
to that proportion w[hi]ch shall remayne above the rate already
allowed of...and they shall certify in Stratford bowe Chappell bothe
of the vew making by the workmen, of the gathering of the rate already
made, of their making a new rate...and of the gathering thereof; and
likewise how farr they have p[ro]ceeded in the repayer of the church
the ixth of Aprill next: and for the punish[men]t of him, the said Wm
Garrett, for his contemptuous taking away of the rate, as is
complayned of, it is respited untill this p[resent] order be
p[er]formed; & he is now monished to appeare in the Consistorie the
first court day [etc]...."[133] So, too, when Richard Fynsett of
Clayton, Sussex, was "detected" to the official for not paying his
rate for church repairs, November, 1595, he appeared and claimed that
not only was his rating excessive, but that the assessment had not
been according to custom, to wit, made by the majority of the
parishioners. He was summoned by the judge to prove his allegation at
the next court day, and to pay his court and other fees. He was
probably unable to prove his point, for under the 9th December
following the record simply states "_Comparuit et solvit feoda
debita_."[134]
The wardens of Swalecliffe, Kent, complain to the archdeacon of
Canterbury in 1565 that their church is near utter decay, but the
parish is so poor that they cannot repair it unless an assessment be
made on the lands within the parish, for the making of which
assessment they ask for an authorization.[135] Two years later they
appear and say in court that their church still lacks windows, "and
the parish is not able to mend the same, without it may please you
that the rest of the cess that was made may be levied, which we cannot
get unless we have your aid."[136]
In the same way the wardens of St. Alban's "implored the aid of the
judge," because they wished divers persons who refused to pay their
rates "co[m]pelled therunto by aucthoritye of this court," otherwise
the unpaid workmen on their ruinous church would leave, and the
half-finished structure sustain damage by winter weather.[137] The
act-books teem with such presentments as the following: one Holaway
refuses to give to the poor-box, "and is found able by the
parish."[138] Thomas Arter will give but a half-penny to the poor.
Arter appears and "saithe that he is not of the wealthe that men
takithe him to be." The judge commands him to pay a half-penny every
week, and dismisses him.[139] "John Wilson haithe not paide his clerke
wages by the report of the clerke."[140] "Here follow the names of
such, as being able, refuse notwithstanding to pay to the poor man's
box [eight names follow]";[141] or "The presentment made by the
churchwardens and sidemen...of all such as are behind for a cess made
for the Church and refuse to pay [five names]."[142] John Baldwin
presented for that "the fame and report goeth" that he keeps back £10,
a legacy given seven years previously for church repairs and the
poor-box, "and the Church and the poor have wanted the same, having no
benefit thereof, as we know."[143] One Consant received a cow
belonging to the parish "and hath not made an account to the parish
for her."[144] Jeremy Robson is cited "for detaining our Clerk's wages
from the land which he occupieth in our parish after 6 s. 8 d. for a
plough land of 140 acres."[145] Two lessees of the parish are
presented "for withholding the farm of two acres and a half of church
land one year and a half unpaid."[146] John Smithe presented for
felling and selling a great oak which stood upon church land, "whereas
now we stand in lack of the same to repair our Church."[147] A
parishioner is cited before the ordinary because he withholds church
goods and refuses both to enter into bond for them and to make an
accounting.[148] So men are presented for not paying the parish fees
due for the burial of members of their family, or for the ringing of
knells;[149] for suffering a church tenement or a part of the church
fence, which they are bound to repair, to fall into decay,[150] and so
forth. In short, any one at all, whether in the capacity of parish
officer; rate payer; trustee; administrator or executor; lessee of the
parish cattle or its lands or tenements--any one, in fact, standing in
the relation of debtor to the parish in a matter falling within the
jurisdiction of the spiritual courts, could be, and was, compelled by
these to pay or to account to the parishioners.
Not only did the Church regulate many acts of a parishioner's life,
and preside over his moral conduct, making him pay in great measure
the costs of this disciplinary administration, but it also was
entrusted with his education, through which it sought to control his
ideas and convictions, and to direct and form public opinion. The
education and training of a nation depend, of course, in greatest
measure on its primary schools and its press. As for its universities,
these are but the apex on the educational pyramid, for a very select
few only. Now the primary schools were represented in the times
whereof we write by the parish schoolmaster, the familiar
"_ludimagister_" of the canons and act-books, and by the incumbent
himself. For the people at large the press was represented almost
entirely by the licenced preacher, and, in the larger towns, the
licenced lecturer.
The Canons of 1571 ordain that no one shall teach the humanities nor
instruct boys, whether in school or in private families,[151] unless
the diocesan licence him under his seal. Nor are schoolmasters to use
other grammars or catechisms than those officially prescribed. Every
year schoolmasters are to commend to the bishop of the diocese the
best read among their pupils, and those that by their achievements
give promise that they may usefully serve the State or the Church, so
that their parents may be induced to educate them further to that
end.[152] Bishop Barnes in his Injunctions of 1577 commands that all
incumbents of cures in Durham diocese not licenced to preach shall
"duly, paynefully and frely" teach the children of their several
parishes to read and write. Furthermore, teachers shall exhort the
parents of those boys who have proved themselves apt at learning and
of "pregnant capacitie" to cause their sons to continue their studies
and to acquire the good and liberal sciences. On the other hand they
shall induce fathers of sons of little wit or capacity to put them to
husbandry, or some other suitable craft, that they may grow to be
useful members of the commonwealth.[153] In this diocese we find
schoolmasters by profession ("_ludimagistri_") summoned at the
visitations very regularly, and there seem to have been a considerable
number of them in the towns, though not in the country parishes, where
the curates doubtless officiated as instructors of the youth according
to the bishop's monitions.[154] Everywhere in the proceedings of the
ecclesiastical courts schoolmasters are "detected" to the judges from
time to time for having no licence to teach.[155]
As for the pulpit, that great instrument of political guidance at a
period when politics consisted chiefly of religious contentions,[156]
it is well known that Elizabeth and her advisors grasped at once its
paramount importance, and that she had been on the throne but little
over a month when she issued her proclamation inhibiting all preaching
and teaching for the time being. This command was followed by her
Injunctions of the next year, forbidding any to preach unless licenced
by herself, her two archbishops, the diocesan, or her visitors.[157]
As is well known also, no command was more universally enforced. It is
constantly mentioned in the metropolitan or diocesan injunctions or
articles of the period,[158] and the proceedings before the ordinaries
bear witness to its enforcement.[159]
Parish opinion was further sought to be moulded by the reading in
church of various tracts, homilies, monitions, forms of special
prayers, etc., etc., which the wardens were ordered to procure from
time to time, and which are very often met with in their accounts.
These official mediums of information or edification conveyed to the
good people of the parishes some knowledge of the events and politics
of the realm and of the world beyond it. Thus they heard of the
overthrow of the rebels in the North of England (1569), the ravages of
the great earthquake of 1579; the progress of the plague; or, again,
of the struggle of the French Protestants led by Henry of Navarre, the
defeat of the Turks at Lepanto, and so forth.[160]
As food for the more advanced minds of the congregations, ordinaries
saw to it that volumes dealing with the interpretation of the
Scriptures, the polity of Church and State, and the defence of that
polity were provided for every parish church. Such works were Erasmus'
Paraphrases, Bullinger's Decades, Bishop Jewel's works, and other
writings of an apologetic nature. To a certain extent news was also
spread, and grievances were aired, in unofficial broadsides or
ballads. These treated of such subjects as the untimely end of
traitors great or small; the adventures of her Majesty's soldiers and
sailors; the rapacity of landlords and the evils of the enclosure
movement.[161]
But these publications and all other printed matter were subject to
the strict censorship of Church and State. Extremely few presses were
permitted in England, and these few under the jealous supervision of
the high ecclesiastical authorities, as is evidenced by the numerous
orders or decrees issued by them to the Master and Wardens of the
London Stationers Company, which, with a very few special patentees,
enjoyed the monopoly of printing.[162]
Having now reviewed the chief administrative functions of the
spiritual courts and their mode of exercise, the question presents
itself, What were the means at the disposal of the ordinaries for
enforcing their decrees? The principal one of these has already been
mentioned incidentally, viz., excommunication. Excommunication was the
most usual, as it was by far the most effective, weapon for compelling
obedience to the mandate of the judge in any matter whatever. Indeed
without this instrument of coercion the ecclesiastical judges would
have been impotent.
Excommunication was of two kinds, the lesser and the greater. The
former was in constant use (to employ the words of a contemporary
document) "for manifest and wilful contumacy or disobedience in not
appearing when ... summoned for a cause ecclesiastical, or when any
sentence or decree of the bishop or his officer, being deliberately
made, was wilfully disobeyed...."[163] Even under the lesser
excommunication a man could not attend service, and he was deprived of
the use of the sacraments.[164] If an excommunicate sought to enter
church with the congregation, either he had to be forcibly expelled or
the service could not proceed.[165] If he continued in his contempt of
court he made himself liable to the greater excommunication,[166] and
then he was virtually an outcast from the society of his fellow
parishioners.[167] That excommunication was feared by the great
majority of parish folk there is no reason to doubt. Certainly the
greater excommunication might seriously injure a man in his business
as well as his social interests, not to mention the trouble and
expense of getting an absolution.[168] That excommunication reduced
most offenders to order the church court proceedings demonstrate. If,
however, a man were obdurate and hardened he was turned over to the
Queen's High Commissioners, and these, while making the fullest use of
ecclesiastical procedure and the oath _ex officio_,[169] also freely
employed the penalties of the temporal courts, viz., fines and
imprisonments. As no ecclesiastical offence was too small for the
Commissioners to deal with, and as their jurisdiction was not limited
(like that of the ordinaries) to a district or a diocese, courts of
High Commission may be called universal ordinaries.[170] Finally, if a
person stood excommunicate over forty days, an ecclesiastical judge,
on application to the diocesan, might procure against him out of
Chancery the writ _De excommunicato capiendo_. This writ was probably
not very often resorted to in practice, partly because of the great
expense involved, and partly perhaps, too, because of the slack
execution of the writ by certain undersheriffs or bailiffs, encouraged
as they were by the rather hostile attitude sometimes assumed against
the courts Christian by the Queen's temporal judges.[171] The writ
was, however, certainly no dead letter, and served also _in terrorem_
to reduce stubborn offenders.[172] Indeed Archbishop Bancroft in 1605
called it "the chiefest temporal strength of ecclesiastical
jurisdiction."[173]
In view of the fact that "standing excommunicate" was in itself a
presentable offence before the ordinary, and an offence often
presented,[174] and in view of the further fact that the excommunicate
might, according to a contemporary who writes with authority, "be
punished for absence from diuine praier, neither shall his
excommunication excuse him, for it is in his owne default,"[175] it is
queried whether such an involuntary absentee from church did not make
himself just as liable to presentment at quarter sessions for
recusancy[176] as any voluntary recusant. Perhaps it is for this
reason that grand juries are sometimes complained of for
discriminating among the names sent in to them on the bishops'
certificates for indictment at quarter sessions, and for certifying
some and throwing out others "at their pleasure."[177]
But be this as it may--and it is conjecture unsupported by positive
proof--enough has been said, it is hoped, to show that ordinaries were
quite capable of making their decrees obeyed, and that excommunication
(contrary to the commonly received opinion) was a most effective means
of coercion. Many, indeed, were its uses. It might (or its equivalent
interdiction or suspension[178]), as has been seen,[179] be used to
compel a parish officer to perform the duties of his office. It might
also be employed, when persuasion failed, to induce a parishioner to
accept office when chosen by his fellows.[180] But, it would seem, one
single definition would comprise all cases: excommunication was
employed against all those who disobeyed some order of the spiritual
judge, express or implied--it was a summary process for contempt of
court, in fact, and was daily used as such.
To recapitulate: a very large part of the parishioner's life and
activity fell under the surveillance and regulation of the
ecclesiastical courts. They compelled him to attend on specified days
his parish church, and no other; to be married there; to have his
children baptized and his wife churched there; to receive a certain
number of times communion there; to contribute to the maintenance of
church and churchyard, as well as to the finding of the requisites for
service or the church ornaments or utensils. In his parish church he
and his children were catechized and instructed, and, if the latter
were taught in a neighboring school-house, it was under the strict
supervision of the ordinary and by his or the bishop's licence and
allowance. So true was this that the schoolmaster was, like the
parson, a church officer. For the parishioner his church was the place
of business where all local affairs, civil or ecclesiastical, were
transacted, as well as the centre of social life in the village. Here
the mandates of the authorities in Church and State were read to him;
here he was admonished of his duty to contribute to, or to perform,
the burdens of parish administration and warned of the penalties for
neglect; here he met with his fellows to settle parish affairs and
audit parish accounts, or to choose parish officers under the auspices
of the ordinary, being himself compelled, if necessary, by that
official to serve when his own turn for office came round. As
churchwarden it was his duty to collect the rents from parish lands
and tenements, and to see that parish offerings were gathered and the
parish rates assessed and paid, or recovered by means of the
ecclesiastical courts. If the church was ruinous; if bread and wine
were lacking for the communion; if any of the books, furniture,
utensils or ornaments enjoined by the diocesan's articles or by the
canons were missing; if the curate did not follow the Rubric, or
retained "superstitious" rites; if the yearly perambulation was
omitted; if faults of the minister or of the parishioners were not
presented: he and his fellow-warden were held responsible by the
official.
The machinery which the canon and the civil law placed at the disposal
of the ordinary for his judicial administration of the parish was
extraordinarily flexible. Courts Christian were unencumbered by the
formalities of the common law or by the coöperation of juries. They
could proceed _ex officio, i.e_., without formal presentment and upon
hearsay only, and they were armed with the formidable power of
administering the oath _ex officio_ by which a parishioner was forced
to disclose all he knew against himself. They could in all cases
command the _doing_, as well as the _giving_[181] of a thing--powers
far more extensive than those possessed by any court of equity of
today. Lastly, it was their custom to require that a return be made in
court, or in other words, a certification, that their commands had
been duly performed--thus stamping them as true administrative bodies.
It was inevitable from the nature of their jurisdiction and procedure
that abuses should be committed both by ecclesiastical judges and by
their officers, such as registrars, proctors and apparitors. These
judges wielded an admirable instrument of administration and
discipline, one that could be bent to meet any emergency, but this
efficiency had been attained at the sacrifice of some indispensable
safeguards for the carrying out of impartial justice. First, no
parishioner's acts, whether done in an official or a private capacity,
were ever quite safe from misrepresentation, or downright
falsification by his enemies, for secret denunciation to wardens or
sidemen (or to the ordinary himself) by any one[182] might start a
proceeding against the person denounced and force him upon oath to
disclose the most private, the most confidential, matters. Again,
proctors, apparitors, registrars, and other scribes whose fees
depended on citations and the drawing up of court proceedings,
documents, or certificates, had every interest in haling persons
before the official, because court fees had to be paid whether a man
were found innocent or guilty.[183] Hence the system tended to create
spies, of whom the chief were the apparitors, or summoners, and their
underlings. There is a very interesting contemporary ballad entitled
_"A new Ballad of the Parrator and the Divell_," attributed by its
modern editor to not later than 1616, which throws much light on the
proceedings of certain unscrupulous apparitors, and reflects also the
strong dislike entertained for the whole tribe of apparitors by people
of the time.[184] The devil going a hunting one Sunday and beating the
bushes, up starts a proud apparitor. During several stanzas the
apparitor narrates to the devil, as one consummately wicked man to
another, all the tricks of his trade to drum up cases for himself and
his court. He spies on lovers as they pass unsuspecting; he haunts the
ale-houses and overhears men's tales over their cups; if business be
dull he even devises scandal among neighbors, and sets them at enmity.
Thus he concocts his accusations of immorality, or drunkenness, or
profanity, or uncharity towards neighbors, and writes them busily down
in his _quorum nomina_, or formulas of citations to appear before the
official's court. "My _corum nomine_ beares such swaye," he boasts,
"They'le sell their clothes my fees to pay." But, remarks the devil
after listening to all this, surely the innocent pay no court fees,
"But answere and discharged bee." "My _corum nomine_ sayth not so,"
rejoins the apparitor, "For all pay fees before they goe.--The
lawier's fees must needs be payd,--And every clarke in his degree--Or
els the lawe cannot be stayd--But excommunicate must they bee." The
devil, amazed and disgusted at laws which "excell the paines of hell,"
turns to go, whereupon the apparitor seeks to arrest and fine him for
traveling on the Sabbath. Exclaiming "Thou art no constable!" the
devil pounces upon the unworthy officer and carries him off to
hell.[185] Thirdly, even when at their best and conducted by upright
judges and officers, the modes of proof in force in the courts
Christian were sometimes utterly inadequate as means for getting at
the truth. The inquest, or trial by jury, had never been introduced
into these courts, where the archaic system of compurgation[186] still
lingered.
If a man for want of friends, or for want of good reputation, were
unable to procure compurgators to attend him at visitations or courts,
held sometimes twenty miles and more away,[187] he might be condemned
as guilty of specific acts which he had never committed.[188] He might
even fail in his proof because he was poor. When the judge arraigned
Lewis Billings of Barking, Essex archdeaconry, for "that he hath
failed in his purgacion," Billings pleaded "that he is a very poore
man and not able to procure his neighbours to come to the cort, and
beare their charges."[189] But, as is well known, contemporaries
attacked not only the inferior officers, but the judges themselves.
Complaints of great abuses were loud and long,[190] and when the
ecclesiastical courts were abolished by the Long Parliament in
1641,[191] the satirical literature of the day celebrated their
downfall with a verve, a gusto, and an exultation amazing to one not
familiar with the procedure of these courts.[192]
As was mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, the secular judges
were given statutory authority to take cognizance of breaches of the
order prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer, of the offence of not
attending church, and other delinquencies against the legal settlement
of religion. Hence in these matters they exercised what might be
called a sort of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in aid of the ordinary
and concurrently with him, though their mode of procedure, of course,
was that of the common law, possessing nothing in common with the
practice adopted in courts Christian. Men who were "hinderers" and
"contemners" of religion; who refrained from going to church without
lawful cause; who had mass-books or super-altars[193] in their
possession;[194] who spoke in contempt of the Book of Common Prayer
and its rites;[195] who caused their children to be baptized with
forms other than those prescribed;[196] ministers who omitted the
cross in baptism;[197] who left off the surplice;[198] who refused to
church women;[199] who called purification "a Jewish ceremony," or who
in their sermons preached seditious doctrine[200]--all these and other
like offenders were indicted at quarter sessions or at the assizes.