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. 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. 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 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.

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 diocèses. 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. 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. In it also he gave monition for the annual choice of collectors for the poor; warning for the yearly perambulation of the parish bounds; 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. In the parish church also proclamation had to be made of estrays before the beasts could be legally seized and impounded. Here, too, school-masters often taught their pupils 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; here too, occasionally, country parsons stored their wool or grain.

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; and in the church also might be held coroners’ inquests over dead bodies. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. Failure to present offences was promptly punished by the judge. 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. 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.

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 reparacon,” 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. 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 [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 Homélies,” they are admonished to certify “that they have the books detected 4th April and to bringe their boks hither." 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 comunión booke to shewe before the comysary." 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...."

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 2d. per ell.

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."

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." But as spiritual tribunals had no legal power to fine 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." 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 we was suspendyd for Lackynge a Byble & to hys offycers xxiij d." The wardens of Melton Mowbray register: “Ffor our chargs & marsements at Lecestr ... for yt ye Rood loft whas not takyn down & deafasyed iiij s. iiij d."

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." 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."

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. The courts fined parishioners individually 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 wt 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."

Sometimes for failure to perform the ordinary’s injunctions a whole parish was excommunicated or a church interdicted. Thus in the Abbey Parish Church 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. 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 ij s. viij d."

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 is out of repairs, for the repairing whereof some things are provided." Two years later they state to the court: “For repairing of the churchyard we desire a day." 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."

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 súche repaire as heretofore they have beyne. But not in súche sufficient repaire as is required by the Article for that effect ministred vnto us."

But the upkeep of the church and its requisites 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; 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; they come across merrymakers dancing the morris-dance on the village green during Sunday afternoon service, or they surprise men at a quiet game of cards at a neighbor’s house during evening prayer.

When admonished by the wardens to enter church, some merely gave contemptuous replies, such as “what prates thou?"; others, when the wardens approached, took to their heels and ran away. 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; according to sex; and, in case of women, according as they were old or young, married or unmarried. 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.

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"; 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." 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. 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...."

If the parson neglected his duties it was incumbent upon the wardens to exhort him to perform them. 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."

By virtue of searching articles of inquiry administered to them, 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? 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 bénéfices, 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." The wardens of Ellerburn, Yorkshire, present Jane Gryme for fornication, and add “but whether the curate did churche hir or no they cannot say." 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." 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 was commended vnto him by justices of peace, nor whether he was licenced to marrye hir according to hir Maiestie’s iniuncions." 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"); the exhibiting to the official of the parish register, or the putting in of copies of it once a year at Easter; the choosing in conjunction with the parson of collectors for the poor up to 1597, in most parishes at any rate; the levying of the 12d. fine on all those who absented themselves from service; 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; the ringing of the church bells on Hallowe’en, or on the eve of All Souls; excessive tolling of bells at funerals, 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. 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 L40 “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.

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.] ..."

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.

A permanent parish officer and one over whose appointment the parishioners had usually no control was the parish minister, whether officiating rector, vicar or curate. Elizabethan statutes and canons sought to increase the dignity of the incumbents of cures, but royal greed did yet more to lower it.

The minister was usually addressed by his parishioners as “Sir” John, or “Sir” George, etc., quite irrespective of his actual rank, 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.

We find in the act-books officiating rectors or vicars presented for non-residence upon their cures; 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-côtés; or for not providing quarter sermons where the clergyman serving the cure was not himself licenced to preach; beneficed men not resident are arraigned for not giving the fortieth part of their revenue to the parish poor; resident ministers indicted for not keeping hospitality, or for not visiting the sick.

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. 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, and punished by that officer.

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." 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." 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, and thereafter he had to see that the excommunicate person remained away from service until absolution was granted by the ordinary, which absolution was then publicly pronounced from the pulpit. 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; to exhort the persons present to refrain from similar transgressions; to read, on occasion, some homily bearing upon the subject; 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. 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. Nor might a man repair to a church in another parish because it was nearer than his own. Should his own minister be unlicenced to preach and only about one incumbent out of four or five was licenced he was not permitted, except under special authorization, to hear a sermon in another church while service was going on in his own. If, however, a man were able to pay the statutory 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.

Heads of families were made responsible for the attendance of their children and servants; innkeepers or victuallers for their guests.

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. There, too, his marriage banns had to be published and it was a presentable offence to marry without banns; there he had to have his children christened and his wife churched; there he was compelled to send sons, daughters or apprentices to be catechized, 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.

All persons over fourteen had to receive communion at Easter, and at least on two other occasions during the year. In fact readiness to receive according to the Anglican rites became the test of a loyal subject.

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.

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-lé-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 súche 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...." Fifty years later we find this vestry ordaining the same procedure to be followed against parish debtors, and referring to its former order.

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. 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 L50 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.]." Now doctors and proctors practiced before ecclesiastical tribunals only.

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.]." 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." Those of Ashburton, Devon, itemize in 1568-1569 two shillings “for a zytation to those that wold nott pay to the power." 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 reparacois 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 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]...." 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."

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. 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."

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 “copelled 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. 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." 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. “John Wilson haithe not paide his clerke wages by the report of the clerke." “Here follow the names of such, as being able, refuse notwithstanding to pay to the poor man’s box [eight names follow]"; 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]." John Baldwin presented for that “the fame and report goeth” that he keeps back L10, 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." One Consant received a cow belonging to the parish “and hath not made an account to the parish for her." Jeremy Robson is cited “for detaining our Clerk’s wages from the land which he occupieth in our parish after 6 d. for a plough land of 140 acres." 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." 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." 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. 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; for suffering a church tenement or a part of the church fence, which they are bound to repair, to fall into decay, 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, 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. 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. 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. Everywhere in the proceedings of the ecclesiastical courts schoolmasters are “detected” to the judges from time to time for having no licence to teach.

As for the pulpit, that great instrument of political guidance at a period when politics consisted chiefly of religious contentions, 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. 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, and the proceedings before the ordinaries bear witness to its enforcement.

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.

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.

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.

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...." Even under the lesser excommunication a man could not attend service, and he was deprived of the use of the sacraments. If an excommunicate sought to enter church with the congregation, either he had to be forcibly expelled or the service could not proceed. If he continued in his contempt of court he made himself liable to the greater excommunication, and then he was virtually an outcast from the society of his fellow parishioners. 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. 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, 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. 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. The writ was, however, certainly no dead letter, and served also in terrorem to reduce stubborn offenders. Indeed Archbishop Bancroft in 1605 called it “the chiefest temporal strength of ecclesiastical jurisdiction."

In view of the fact that “standing excommunicate” was in itself a presentable offence before the ordinary, and an offence often presented, 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," it is queried whether such an involuntary absentee from church did not make himself just as liable to presentment at quarter sessions for recusancy 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."

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), as has been seen, 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. 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 cooeperation 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 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 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. 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. 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. 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 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, he might be condemned as guilty of specific acts which he had never committed. 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 purgación,” 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." But, as is well known, contemporaries attacked not only the inferior officers, but the judges themselves. Complaints of great abuses were loud and long, and when the ecclesiastical courts were abolished by the Long Parliament in 1641, 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.

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 in their possession; who spoke in contempt of the Book of Common Prayer and its rites; who caused their children to be baptized with forms other than those prescribed; ministers who omitted the cross in baptism; who left off the surplice; who refused to church women; who called purification “a Jewish ceremony,” or who in their sermons preached seditious doctrine all these and other like offenders were indicted at quarter sessions or at the assizes.