Ecclesiastical History of England, Volume 4—The Church of the Restoration [part 2]

After tracing the political history of the Church, and the development of Nonconformity in different directions, I proceed to gather up a number of facts illustrative of the worship and social religious life of England after the Restoration.

I. The injuries done to cathedrals during the Civil Wars were repaired, and such partitions as had been erected to adapt them for Nonconformist use were removed.

Seth Ward, first as Dean, afterwards as Bishop of Exeter, improved the cathedral of that diocese. The same may be said respecting Salisbury, to which he was translated. That cathedral had been kept in repair during the Commonwealth, at whose expense no one knew, for the workmen engaged upon it were wont to reply to inquirers, “They who employ us well pay us—trouble not yourselves to inquire who they are. Whoever they are they do not desire to have their names known.” But Ward increased the beauty of the building, for he paved the cloisters and choir, the latter with black and white marble.[252]

Hacket persevered in his labours at Lichfield until the sacred edifice reached its completion. He raised money “by bare-faced begging,” and no gentleman lodged or baited in the City whom he did not visit, that he might solicit contributions towards the object so dear to his heart. North, who says this, also remarks, that the Bishop adorned the choir so “completely and politely,” that he had never seen a “more laudable and well-composed structure.” He also mentions the Cathedral of York as “stately,” only “disgraced by a wooden roof.” Durham too is described by the same pen as most ancient, with the “marks of old ruin;” and of that, and of York Minster, the judge says that “the gentry affect to walk there to see and be seen.”[253] Dr. John Barwick, who, for his loyalty, was first rewarded by the bestowment upon him of the Deanery of Durham, exerted himself vigorously during the short time that he held that office, in the reparation of the cathedral and the prebendal houses.[254] And when removed to the Deanery of St. Paul’s he evinced equal zeal in promoting the restoration of that edifice. The rebuilding of it after the fire was a great undertaking, and called forth the strenuous efforts of Sancroft, who succeeded Barwick in the Deanery. To him, as much as to any one, posterity owes the adoption of Sir Christopher Wren’s design, after abortive attempts had been made to build anew upon the old foundations. Sancroft’s correspondence with the architect indicates his interest in the preparation of the plans; the passing of the Coal Act, by which funds were secured, was promoted by his exertions, and amongst the voluntary subscribers the Dean’s name is conspicuous.[255] The first stone was laid in 1675, and ten years afterwards the edifice had so far advanced that the walls of the choir and side-aisles were completed, and the porticoes and pillars of the dome were finished.

The style of architecture adopted in new ecclesiastical structures was debased Grecian; of which a specimen may be found at Northampton, in All Saints’ Church, with its Ionic columns supporting a balustrade, in the centre of which—symbolical of the worship of royalty—stands the statue of Charles II., who gave towards the building a large quantity of timber. The pencil of Sir Godfrey Kneller was employed upon pictures of Moses and Aaron for the decoration of the altar-piece; there, and in several cathedrals and large churches, remained until of late, hideous examples of the wooden screens and galleries of the period. In connection with this allusion to ecclesiastical carpentry, it is not impertinent to notice that there is a paper in the Record Office, dated February 18th, 1677, thanking Williamson for a new pulpit just erected at Bridekirk, “gilded with gold and silver for its better adornment, and all covered over with a brownish ointment.” The churchwardens ask for a new pulpit-cloth and cushion. Sculptured sepulchres of the same age, now, after a complete revolution in public taste, excite as much ridicule as they then excited admiration; yet long before it was said, “Princes’ images on their tombs do not lie, as they were wont, seeming to pray to Heaven; but with their hands under their cheeks, as if they died of the tooth-ache. They are not carved with their eyes fixed upon the stars; but, as their minds were wholly bent upon the world, the self-same way they seem to turn their faces.”[256]

The ornaments of the church, like its architecture and its sculpture, expressed the taste of the day. An altar “especially adorned, the white marble enclosure curiously and richly carved,”—flowers and garlands, the work of Grinling Gibbons,—purple velvet fringed with gold, with the letters I H S richly embroidered,—sacramental plate valued at £200—these are notable objects which, in the new church of St. James, Westminster, erected at that time, called forth admiring words from the eminent Anglican John Evelyn.[257] They indicate a feeling totally at variance with mediæval Catholicism; and nowhere does it appear that in those days vases of flowers, or painted banners, or other accompaniments of mediæval Ritualism, were in any case employed. On the contrary, a keen jealousy of Romanism extensively prevailed, and it may be discovered very plainly in the following passage, extracted from a contemporary diary:—“The Church of Allhallows, Barking, in London, was presented for innovations, as bowing to the East, and for the picture of the Angel Gabriel over the altar. It came to a trial, Monday, March 1st, and the picture was brought into the Court; and the minister that caused it to be set up submitted to the Court, and the picture must be set up no more, and so the business ends.”[258]

In Articles of Visitation we meet with minute inquiries respecting parish churches; but many of the old fabrics must have been in a miserable condition, if we may judge from complaints made in the diocese of Winchester; it being said that “some in late times were totally ruined and demolished, and those of them still standing were much decayed and out of repair.” The Bishop, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament, united some of the parishes, “for the encouragement of able ministers to undertake the care of them.”[259] The cost expended on the church at Euston, in Suffolk, is mentioned as “most laudable,” in contrast with other Houses of God in that county, which resembled thatched cottages rather than “temples in which to serve the Most High.”[260] Even cathedrals were badly furnished, and in sorry repair. “Are the uncomely forms,” asks the Bishop of Durham, in 1668, “and coarse mats, lately used at the administration of the Holy Communion, for such persons as usually resort thither, without the rails, taken away; and others more comely put in their place, and decently covered, as heretofore hath been accustomed? And are the partitions on each hand of these forms, under the two arches of the church next the said rails, well framed in joiners’ work, and there set up for the better keeping out of the wind and cold, which otherwise do many times molest and annoy the communicant?”[261]

It was required that in every parish church there should be a stone font; a comely pulpit, with a decent cloth or cushion; a carpet of silk, or some decent stuff, on the communion-table during service; and a fair cloth for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper; also a cup and flagon of silver, chests for alms and for registers; and it was also ordered that in churches there should be placed the Book of Canons, a Book of Offices for the 30th of January, the 29th of May, and the 5th of November, a copy of Jewel’s Apology well and fairly bound, and a record—in which strange preachers should write their names in the presence of churchwardens. Notwithstanding the careful and repeated inquiries made respecting such matters in Articles of Visitation, it is highly probable that they were often neglected.[262]

II. From the buildings and their furniture we turn to the worship, including its vestments and mode of celebration. Whatever may be the exact meaning of the rubric prefixed to the Order of Morning Prayer, chasubles and other priestly attire used in the second year of King Edward, were not worn after the Restoration, nor did any of the Anglican prelates attempt to enforce their use. Copes, according to the Twenty-fourth Canon, were prescribed to be worn by the principal ministers at the Holy Communion in cathedrals; but in other churches ministers were to read the Divine service, and administer the sacraments, in a decent and comely surplice with sleeves, and wearing University hoods according to their degrees. With such an arrangement the visitation articles of the prelates are in accordance. Croft, Bishop of Hereford, that very low Churchman, took care to express his decided approbation “of a pure white robe on the minister’s shoulders,” emblematical of the purity of heart which became the service.[263]

Wind instruments were, for a time used in some cathedral choirs, but they soon gave place to organs; and the boys failed not to bring “a fair book of the anthem and service, and sometimes the score,” to distinguished strangers.[264]

Baptism was performed according to the Prayer Book, and a public administration of it in the case of those who had passed the age of childhood sometimes attracted considerable notice. The following anecdote on this subject occurs in a letter:—“Mr. John Harrington (whose father was some time since one of the serjeants-at-arms to His Majesty) had his boy baptized in the church; he being about fifteen years old, and not baptized before, and the son of a Nonconformist. To see which the church was fuller than it useth to be at other times; he having God-fathers and God-mothers according to the ceremony of the Church.”[265]

The Lord’s Supper was administered from the table placed by the wall, at the east end of the church, in accordance with Laudian precedents, in spite of the rubrical direction that it “shall stand in the body of the church, or in the chancel; where morning and evening prayers are appointed to be said.” In some churches, the Communion Service, on non-communion days, was read from the desk, it being alleged, “that it was indecent to go to the altar and back, with the surplice still on, to the homily or sermon”—a reason which implies that the surplice was worn in the pulpit, even by those who read the Communion Service in the desk. Clergymen left the desk, after the second lesson, to baptize in the font at the west end of the church.[266]

On special occasions, cathedrals witnessed extraordinary processions—as when Judges, with the Sheriffs and their officers, attended at Assize sermons; or when a Mayor and Aldermen, clothed in municipal robes, with their gold chains, marched or rode thither, through streets of quaint architecture, to celebrate festivals civic or sacred. A Royal visit eclipsed all mere annual pageants; and it is related that when Charles II., in the year 1671, visited the City of Norwich, as the guest of Lord Henry Howard, afterwards Duke of Norfolk, His Majesty went to the grand old Norman temple in the Close—the pride of the City—and was “sung into the church with an anthem; and when he had ended his devotion at the east end of the church, where he kneeled on the hard stone, he went to the Bishop’s palace [then occupied by Reynolds], and was there nobly entertained.”[267]

St. George’s Chapel, Windsor, became the scene of peculiar solemnities. The Feast of St. George was there celebrated in 1662; and the knights elect were constrained to receive their investiture below, in the choir, yet directly under their proper stalls, because of “the great concourse of people which at that time had flocked to Windsor (greedy to behold the glory of that solemnity, which for many years had been intermitted), and rudely forced not only into and filled the lower row of stalls, but taken up almost the whole choir.” Two years afterwards, at the Feast of St. George, there was an anthem, composed for the solemnity, accompanied by the organ and other instrumental music; this was the first time that instrumental music was introduced into the Royal chapel.[268]

Pompous funerals had taken place during the Commonwealth, particularly in Westminster Abbey. Funerals more pompous still occurred in the same national edifice, with a splendour surpassing what might be exhibited elsewhere. Monk, Duke of Albemarle, in 1670, was conveyed “by the King’s orders, with all respect imaginable,” in a long procession; and within the sacred walls the remains were met by the Dean and Prebendaries, who wore copes; and, in connection with the service, offerings were made at the altar.[269]

On Easter Day, at the Royal Chapel, when the Bishop of Rochester preached before the King, and the sacrament followed, “there was perfume burnt before the office began.”[270]

The Restoration brought with it much irreverence in religion. The worship at Lichfield was performed “with more harmony and less huddle” than in any church in England, except in St. Paul’s at a later period;[271] a laudable exception proving a disgraceful rule. Complaints were officially made, by a circular letter in the name of Archbishop Sheldon, respecting the slovenly performance of sacred duties by Deans, Canons, and other dignitaries. Reading the service and administering the sacraments had been neglected by such persons, as if they had been offices beneath their importance, to be performed only by Vicars or petty Canons.[272] Croft, Bishop of Hereford, complains that “such dirty nasty surplices as most of them wear, and especially the singers in cathedrals (where they should be most decent), is rather an imitation of their dirty lives,” and had given his “stomach such a surfeit of them” as that he had almost an aversion to them all; and he adds, “I am confident, had not this decent habit been so indecently abused, it had never been so generally loathed.”[273] And Trelawny, of Bristol, laments, in reference to the united parishes of Elberton and Littleton, “I never saw so ill churches, or such ill parishioners. In one the sacrament has not been administered since the Restoration, in the other very seldom; and all the plate is but a small silver bowl, and that is kept at a Quaker’s house, with my late orders to the contrary.”[274] In Articles of Visitation by the Bishop of Lincoln, it is asked whether churchwardens took care that people should not stand idle, or talk together in the church-porch, or walk in the church-yard during the time of sacred offices, or lean or lay their hats on the communion-table; and whether no minstrels, morrice-dancers, dogs, hawks, or hounds were brought into the church to the disturbance of the congregation.[275]

Neglect on the part of ecclesiastical officers was accompanied by irreverence on the part of people in general; in all of which may be traced—beyond the result of certain Puritan extravagances during the Civil War—the effect of educational habits which date as far back as the Reformation, and even earlier still, when worn-out superstitions produced contempt. In some cases during the reign of Charles II. impious frivolity and brutal ignorance are apparent. A curious example of this is furnished in the letter of a Canon Residentiary at York, written February 12th, 1673, and preserved amongst the State Papers:—“On Sundays and holidays (when the young people of the town are afloat), 400 or 500 would walk, talk, and do much worse things, to the great disturbance of Divine service (not to mention other aggravations), that nothing could be heard, though with all, I have used such temper and moderation in it, that nothing hath at any time been done against any of them, further than to urge them either to go in to prayers, or to go out of the church, unless sometimes I have catched at a rude boy’s hat, and kept it till the end of the prayers, and given it him (with a chiding) again. Howbeit, this, it seems, so exasperated the youth of the town, that yesterday (being Shrove Tuesday) they, in time of Divine service, broke open the church doors (which I had caused to be shut), and when (after service ended) I was going to my house, they so affronted and abused me, that Captain Henry Wood, and sundry other officers of the garrison, who were walking in the church, were forced not only to come, but to send for two files of musketeers, to my rescue.” The writer then relates that, after the soldiers had left, the mob attacked his house, broke his windows, and did damage to the extent of £40; and would possibly have set fire to his house, had they not been restrained by the military. The Lord Mayor of the City refused to interfere, as the church-yard was not within his liberty.

III. Episcopal revenues were unequally distributed.[276] The Bishop of Durham received, in 1670 and afterwards, an annual income of £3,280; previously to which his resources were so limited, that it was computed not more than £1,500 remained after he had paid subsidies and first-fruits. Durham House, in the Strand, had been seized by Queen Elizabeth; although reclaimed by the Bishop upon her death, it never again became the episcopal residence; but Aukland Palace, which used to be to Durham what Croydon used to be to Lambeth, remained in the Bishops’ possession, and furnished an opportunity for the richest hospitalities. Ely Place, where Shakespeare’s “good strawberries” grew in the garden, with its vineyard, meadow, and orchard, had been appropriated to Sir Christopher Hatton by Queen Elizabeth; yet Bishop Laney had possession of the palace, and died there in 1675. The Bishops of Carlisle had long lost Worcester House, in the Strand; and the prelates of Winchester had leased out “their very fair house well repaired” (in Southwark), which had “a large wharf and landing-place,” to occupy a mansion in the suburb of Chelsea.[277] The provincial palaces of the Bishops surpassed those which they had in the Metropolis, and were well-known centres of social attraction and entertainment. Whilst lamentations were poured forth by some over the robbery and spoliation of sees, so that it was said a mean gentleman of £200 in land yearly would not exchange his worldly state and condition with divers Bishops,[278]—Burnet speaks of the extravagance of the class generally, and represents them as a bad pattern “to all the lower dignitaries, who generally took more care of themselves than of the Church.” It is a fact, however, which it would be unjust not to mention, that many of the Bishops were large contributors to the repairs of sacred buildings, and to other ecclesiastical objects. Cosin, for instance, expended the income of the first seven years of his episcopacy in the improvement of property belonging to the see of Durham, and in establishing various charitable foundations.

The see of Bristol was extremely poor, and Hereford yielded only £800 a year.[279] Yet Brian Duppa, after his translation to the see of Winchester, which he held but a year and a half, is reported to have received in fines as much as £50,000. Out of this large amount, however, he remitted £30,000 to his tenants, and expended £16,000 in acts of charity.[280] Morley disposed of almost all his income in benefactions. Sheldon’s gifts were computed at upwards of £66,000.[281]

Palaces, deaneries, and prebendal houses, like cathedrals and churches, had suffered in the wars. Their reparation, and the business connected with raising funds for the purpose, largely occupied the attention of the restored possessors. Hacket, so successful in the re-edification of his cathedral, failed to complete the re-edification of his palace, and left the work to his successor, who shamefully neglected it; but it should be remembered that the restoration of the palaces at Exeter and Salisbury are amongst the good deeds ascribed to Seth Ward.[282] Sancroft procured an Act of Parliament which enabled him to lease out shops and tenements in St. Paul’s Churchyard, upon condition of expending £2,500, before September 30th, 1673, in building a commodious deanery; and the Privy Council, after noticing, in their minutes, that the houses of the Dean and Prebendaries of Winchester, in the late rebellion, were totally demolished, and the greatest part of two other houses likewise pulled down, and three only left standing on the old foundations, very ruinous and out of repair, gave orders, with a view to facilitate the rebuilding, that there should be a repeal of the clauses in the statutes of the Church “which concern succession in vacant prebends, and the reparation of deans’ and prebends’ houses.”[283] Large demands were made upon Chapter revenues, not only for repairs, but for Royal presents and charities; and some cathedral stalls furnished little emolument to their occupants: so that, speaking of a prebend, Croft of Hereford says, “This thing, though small (worth not above £80 per annum) is the best and only considerable thing in my gift, my bishopric being as wretched in this—to my great discomfort—as in the revenue.”[284] Deans and Canons could not vie with Bishops in hospitality, but the comforts of life were amply provided and enjoyed in snug and cozy abodes, within the limits of the cathedral close: and North mentions the good ale and small beer brewed from South Country malt, and supplied from the Prebend’s cellars to his relative the Judge, when visiting the City of Carlisle.[285]

In the year 1663 it was computed that there were 12,000 church livings, of which 3,000 were impropriate, and 4,165 were sinecures without resident clergymen. Considering the small means possessed by some distinguished clergymen, we are not surprised at the eager applications with which they beset Secretary Williamson, whenever vacancies occurred in ecclesiastical posts of a promising kind. Sometimes bribes were offered to promote success, as appears from a letter written to Williamson by a clergyman named Gregory, who sought a stall in a cathedral. He said he had a friend near the Earl of Clarendon; but, the Earl’s interest failing, he desired the Secretary to procure a grant of the next prebend in either of the places he referred to; and he promised gladly, upon the passing of the seal, to gratify his friend with one hundred pieces. A living in any county, if considerable, would be no less welcome, though the simoniacal oath deterred the writer from anything more than an indefinite engagement. He could answer for it, that his Lordship of Gloucester would give him such a character as showed him deserving of the preferment desired.[286]

To pass from this shot so skilfully but so illegally fired into the ecclesiastical preserves of the State—whether it brought anything into the hands of this ministerial poacher is not worth inquiry—we light upon other examples, in abundance, of clergymen patiently waiting and eagerly asking for the bestowment of patronage. The Rector of Meonstoke, Hampshire, informed the influential man at head-quarters that he had just fulfilled his course of preaching in the Cathedral Church of Chichester as a minor prophet, which rendered him capable of advancement to a residentiary’s place, if he could obtain an election. There was a place vacant, and he now solicited the Secretary’s interest with the Dean, who was Clerk of the Closet,—as he would not deny such an important personage anything,—and the petitioner was sure that a certain Canon he mentions would agree with the Dean; and both together could overrule the Chapter, which at that time consisted of them and two others. The latter, indeed, were stiffly resolved for a Mr. Sefton, and the Dean had thoughts of the thing for himself; but the writer presumed the Dean would get loose to it when he understood it was below him. Should he, however, continue in such inclination, the petitioner asked that he might be the Dean’s successor. The place would be a preferment to the suppliant Rector, who considered he would not be unacceptable to the Church and City, and it would redeem him from the desolate condition he was in by the death of his dear Betty.[287] Again, Bishop Reynolds appointed Dr. Mylles to be his Chancellor in the diocese of Norwich, by patent under his Episcopal seal dated 13th of September, 1661. The Chancellor requested the Dean and Chapter to confirm the patent, which they refused to do, without assigning any reason for their refusal. He accordingly applied to the King, and prayed that he would be graciously pleased to enforce the needful confirmation of the patent by the proper ecclesiastical authorities. In urging upon His Majesty this petition, Dr. Mylles notices an objection made to him, on the ground of his having been on the side of the Parliament in the late troubles. To remove the objection, he asserts that he had never disobliged any of the King’s friends; that when he discovered Cromwell’s designs, he quitted the army; that he was ejected from the University at Oxford for declining to take the Engagement; that he had served under the Duke of Albemarle, and had helped to bring in the King. This petition was backed by Rushworth, who pleaded, amongst other things, in his client’s favour, that at private meetings, where he thought he might speak without danger, he had not hesitated to contribute counsel and advice towards His Majesty’s restoration, which had produced upon Lord Fairfax, and other considerable persons, a good effect.[288]

To cite another case:—“Most honoured Sir,”—wrote Dr. Fell, Vice-Chancellor of Oxford, to Williamson, immediately after the death of Dr. William Fuller, who had been translated from Limerick to Lincoln,—“it is a privilege our people here take to themselves to bestow all bishoprics before the King disposes of them; and they, having, upon the first news of the vacancy of Lincoln, made the Provost to be the successor, went on, in the same method of liberality, to bestow his places; and upon Sunday night one of the most popular Bachelors in Divinity that we have in town came to me upon that errand, signifying his concern on behalf of the Master of Pembroke; and on Monday several others, of other houses, made the same application. I told them all, that first it was very indecent to begin a canvass before a place was actually void, and probably a considerable time would pass before there would be a vacancy; besides, they should consider that Dr. Tully might justly pretend to the place, and, if he did, would not fail of being assisted by his friends.” To move on behalf of Dr. Hall, he goes on to say, might be a great unkindness to him, since he did not appear as a candidate, nor probably would like to have his name brought in question; besides, it would create a competition and disturbance in the University; and therefore he had desired his friends not to proceed in the matter.[289] Dr. Tully, referred to in this letter—an eminent Divine and Controversialist, of whom notice will be taken in our review of the theology of the period—was not an unconcerned spectator of the changes occurring at the time, and the excitement which they produced; and I find amongst the State Papers the following exquisite specimen of the characteristic flattery of the age preserved in a letter which he wrote, on Holy Thursday, to his friend at Court:—“Right Honourable,—Having no way else to express the sense of my greatest obligations to you, I beg you will commiserate so far as to accept this renewal of my heartiest acknowledgments. I hasten to make it, not for fear I should forget your favours (I know that to be next impossibility), but to shun the pain of delay, from the weight and pressure of them. It is some ease to a grateful mind, under such a load of obligations, to air itself in the field where they grow. Most honoured Sir, amongst all the rest of your noble kindnesses to me, I must single that out of the crowd, which made you unkind (I had almost said, unnatural) to yourself, to let me know how much you are my friend. I can but thank you, and tell stories at home and abroad of your goodness to me, and heartily pray for the increase of all honour to you, with a long enjoyment, and the reward at last of a blessed immortality.”[290]

These well-timed compliments were not in vain; for, though Tully did not obtain any preferment in consequence of the death of the Bishop of Lincoln, he was immediately afterwards promoted to the Deanery of Ripon, upon the death of Dr. John Neile.

Dr. Barlow, a well-known Oxford man, and an eager aspirant for a bishopric, obtained the see of Lincoln, and wrote on the 29th of May, as mentioned already, to his friend, the Secretary, stating that fees, first-fruits, and other charges cost him £1,500 or £2,000 before he could receive a penny from the bishopric. “I was never in debt,” he says, “yet borrow I must, and, to enable me to repay honestly, I mean to stay here (as others I see do in the like case) till a little after Lady-day next. My College and Margaret Lecture I can (without any dispensation) keep, and perform the duties of both till then.”[291]

Amidst the turnings of the preferment-wheel at that time, Dr. Hall, referred to in Vice-Chancellor Fell’s letter, was elected to the Margaret professorship, vacated at length by Barlow’s resignation.

In July of the same year, 1675, another letter reached Whitehall, upon a similar subject. “It is thought here,” wrote Dr. John Wallis, the celebrated Mathematician at Oxford, “that the Bishop of Worcester is either dead, or at least not likely to subsist long, which will give occasion of alterations. If that or any other occasion give you opportunity of doing a kindness to your servant, or my son, I believe His Majesty would be very ready to grant, if we knew what to ask. I have signified to Dr. Conant by his son your good thoughts of him.” We must now terminate these illustrations.

IV. By an easy transition we pass from ecclesiastical revenues to ecclesiastical courts. Both the Archidiaconal and the Consistorial resumed their activity after the Restoration, and before them were brought numerous charges of delinquency, respecting clergymen and laymen. It would be beyond my purpose to enter into the penetralia of these intricate proceedings; it will be sufficient to notice the nature of some of the accusations on which individuals were arraigned, as illustrative of the social life of the period. Yet before doing so I must notice two circumstances, which require more attention than they have received from historians. The first is this:—

By the Act of the 13th Charles II. cap. 12, which restored the jurisdiction of the ordinary Ecclesiastical Courts, but abolished that of the extraordinary High Commission Court, it was expressly provided that there should no longer be any administration of the ex-officio oath, by which persons were compelled to accuse, or to purge themselves of any criminal matter. But as it has been recently remarked, whilst the letter of this enactment seems to have been so far observed, that an accused clergyman or other person, liable to deprivation, could not be obliged to answer on oath as to the truth of the charge,—the spirit of the enactment, in certain other cases, was violated to a great extent. For, in the administration of articles to a defendant in a cause of correction, the practice was to charge the commission of the offence on the ground of public “fame,” without specific evidence, and to require the defendant to answer on oath, who, if he failed to do so, was treated as having admitted the truth of the allegation. Thus, instead of the burden of proving guilt being thrown on the accuser, the burden of establishing innocence seems to have rested on the accused, and he became liable to be called upon to make “canonical purgation;” i.e., “to declare on oath that he was not guilty of the offence, and to produce a certain number of witnesses, as ‘compurgators,’ to swear that they believed his declaration to be true.”[292] This circumstance shows, in what a limited degree the Act of Charles II., restoring the ecclesiastical courts, diminished even oppressive tendencies; how, whilst it altered them in form, it left scope for the exercise of their former spirit, and how they remained instruments of injustice and cruelty, to be used by those who were malignantly or resentfully disposed. At the same time we should carefully weigh the number and the nature of the appeals made from the judgment of the lower to the decision of the higher authority. To this I will presently direct attention.

The second circumstance is that the High Court of Delegates was restored upon the return of Charles II. This court, which had from ancient times received secular appeals, acquired, in the reign of Henry VIII., the power of deciding ecclesiastical appeals from all ordinary ecclesiastical tribunals in England and Wales.[293] It appears that the only court not within its appellate jurisdiction was the Court of High Commission. Cases of doctrine, and cases of discipline, unsatisfactorily litigated in the lower courts, came up before this tribunal of delegates for final review and decision. The constitution of the court was remarkable. Although exercising a supreme ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the lay element preponderated. Of the fifty-one Commissions between 1660 and 1688, two were composed of Bishops and Civilians; eighteen included Bishops, Judges, and Civilians; one contained Peers, Bishops, Judges, and Civilians; eleven of the Commissions were directed to Civilians only, and nineteen to Judges and Civilians.[294] It may be added that soon after the Restoration the use of Latin was resumed in their proceedings. The fact, with regard to the strong infusion of laical power into the constitution of this important court, not only throws an instructive light upon the relations of Church and State, but it proves that for none of the acts of this court, at that time under consideration, whether righteous or unrighteous, are the clergy to be held entirely responsible; with some of them they had nothing whatever to do.

It is to the Parliamentary Returns of the appeals made to the delegates, that we are indebted for the knowledge of the following ecclesiastical causes:—

A clergyman, named Slader, Rector of Birmingham, had been brought before the Court of Arches on an appeal from the Consistory of Lichfield, and finally his case came before the Court of Delegates, by which court he was decreed to be sequestered ab officio suo clericali. He stood charged with having forged letters of orders, with disaffection to the King, with preaching amongst the Quakers, railing in the pulpit at the parishioners, and indulging in swearing, gaming, perjury, and incest. Some of these charges were very scandalous, but to them were added others of a most curious and extraordinary description,—for this man was accused of practising jugglery, of pretending, on one occasion, to cut off his son’s head, and to set it on again, and of “taking money for the sight thereof.” One Dr. Meades was deprived, on an appeal from the Arches, and from the Consistory of Winchester, for non-residence, neglect of duty, allowing the vicarage to fall into decay, and for not having read the Thirty-Nine Articles within the time prescribed by law, after his institution and induction. William Woodward, Rector of Trotterscliffe, Kent, was charged with “having uttered various profane and blasphemous speeches, e.g., that the Lord’s Prayer was not commanded to be used; that the Church of England might as well be called the Church of Rome; that he had attained such perfection that he could not sin; and that one William Francklin, a ropemaker, who had lived with him, was the Christ and Saviour.” Sentence of deprivation was ultimately pronounced in this case.[295] Theophilus Hart, in the diocese of Peterborough, was corrected, punished, and condemned in costs, for not conforming in the exercise of his clerical office: he did not baptize infants with the sign of the cross, he did not catechise the young, and he omitted many parts of the services prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer. Woodward and Hart seem to be the only clergymen during this period who appealed to the delegates in proceedings carried on against false doctrine. One Clewer, Vicar of Croydon, figures in local history as a very disgraceful person; he was tried and burnt in the hand at the Old Bailey for stealing a silver cup. His case came before the Court of Appeal, and the deprivation previously pronounced by the Court of Arches received confirmation.[296]

The laity, as well as the clergy, being subject to the ecclesiastical tribunals, causes relating to the former, after being tried elsewhere, were finally adjudicated by the delegates. One man was proceeded against for having three children unbaptized, and for not receiving the Lord’s Supper; a second, for absence from public worship; a third, for not keeping in repair the chancel of the parish church; and a fourth, for contempt of the law, and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, in teaching boys without having obtained any faculty or license.[297] Ancient forms of Church discipline sometimes followed conviction. A party, charged in the Consistory Court of Norwich with defamation, was sentenced to do penance in the parish church of Darsham, by repeating, after the minister, words of confession and contrition.[298]

As to the number of appeals there may be reckoned up forty-five during a little more than a century, between the year 1533—the date of the commencement of the ecclesiastical power of the court—and the year 1641, the period of its temporary suppression. There were forty-six between the date of its re-establishment, in 1660, and the year of the Revolution, 1688. This would look as if more dissatisfaction was felt with the judgment of the lower ecclesiastical authority during this twenty-eight years after the Restoration, than during the hundred and eight years before the outbreak of the Parliament struggle with Charles I. Hence it might be inferred that the grievances of ecclesiastical rule increased in the reign of Charles II.; but this would not be a fair deduction, because the High Commission Court, which had been by far the most oppressive tribunal for spiritual causes, and which had been exempted from the supervision of the Court of Delegates, remained no longer in existence; and thereby a large amount of injustice was prevented. Forty-five appeals in twenty-eight years from all the ecclesiastical courts of England and Wales do not form a large number, and would seem to show that trials in ecclesiastical cases must have been much less numerous than when the High Commission existed in full play. Very few cases of appeal touching Dissenters appear in the records of the Court of Delegates. Dissenters, of course, were subject to trouble and annoyance from Archidiaconal and Consistorial authorities, but the main sorrows of Nonconformity, under the last two Stuarts’ reign, arose from the operation of Statute Law, as found in the Uniformity, Conventicle, and Five Mile Acts.

Amongst instances of discipline exercised by Bishops upon the clergy, there occurred one so striking and curious that it deserves particular mention. Dr. Lloyd, who held the see of Peterborough from 1679 to 1685, and was thence transferred to Norwich, seems to have been extraordinarily strict in the discharge of his episcopal functions, and to have visited offending ministers with public punishment. In accordance with his habitual zeal for purity in the faith and morals of the Church, he required the following recantation to be read in his cathedral by the person whose name is mentioned, and whose case is thus described:—“I, Thomas Ashenden, being deeply sensible of the foul dishonour I have done to our most holy religion, and the great scandal I have given by a late profane abuse of the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed, and the Ten Commandments, which I wrote and caused to be published, do here, in the presence of God, and of His ministers, and of this congregation, most heartily bewail, with unfeigned sorrow, both that notorious offence, and also all my other sins, which betrayed me into it, most humbly begging forgiveness of God, and of his Church, whose heaviest censures I have justly deserved. And as I earnestly desire that none of my brethren (much less our holy function or the Church) may be the worse thought of by any, by reason of my miscarriages, so I do faithfully promise, by God’s grace, to endeavour to behave myself hereafter so religiously in my place and calling, that I may be no more a discredit to them. In which resolution that I may persist, I beg and implore the assistance of all your prayers, and desire withal, that this my retractation and sincere profession of repentance, may be made as public as my crimes have been, that none may be tempted hereafter to do evil by my example.”[299]