The Elizabethan Parish in its Ecclesiastical and Financial Aspects

by Sedley Lynch Ware

Parish opinion was further sought to be moulded by the reading in church of various tracts, homilies, monitions, forms of special prayers, etc., etc., which the wardens were ordered to procure from time to time, and which are very often met with in their accounts. These official mediums of information or edification conveyed to the good people of the parishes some knowledge of the events and politics of the realm and of the world beyond it. Thus they heard of the overthrow of the rebels in the North of England (1569), the ravages of the great earthquake of 1579; the progress of the plague; or, again, of the struggle of the French Protestants led by Henry of Navarre, the defeat of the Turks at Lepanto, and so forth.[160]

As food for the more advanced minds of the congregations, ordinaries saw to it that volumes dealing with the interpretation of the Scriptures, the polity of Church and State, and the defence of that polity were provided for every parish church. Such works were Erasmus' Paraphrases, Bullinger's Decades, Bishop Jewel's works, and other writings of an apologetic nature. To a certain extent news was also spread, and grievances were aired, in unofficial broadsides or ballads. These treated of such subjects as the untimely end of traitors great or small; the adventures of her Majesty's soldiers and sailors; the rapacity of landlords and the evils of the enclosure movement.[161]

But these publications and all other printed matter were subject to the strict censorship of Church and State. Extremely few presses were permitted in England, and these few under the jealous supervision of the high ecclesiastical authorities, as is evidenced by the numerous orders or decrees issued by them to the Master and Wardens of the London Stationers Company, which, with a very few special patentees, enjoyed the monopoly of printing.[162]

Having now reviewed the chief administrative functions of the spiritual courts and their mode of exercise, the question presents itself, What were the means at the disposal of the ordinaries for enforcing their decrees? The principal one of these has already been mentioned incidentally, viz., excommunication. Excommunication was the most usual, as it was by far the most effective, weapon for compelling obedience to the mandate of the judge in any matter whatever. Indeed without this instrument of coercion the ecclesiastical judges would have been impotent.

Excommunication was of two kinds, the lesser and the greater. The former was in constant use (to employ the words of a contemporary document) "for manifest and wilful contumacy or disobedience in not appearing when … summoned for a cause ecclesiastical, or when any sentence or decree of the bishop or his officer, being deliberately made, was wilfully disobeyed…."[163] Even under the lesser excommunication a man could not attend service, and he was deprived of the use of the sacraments.[164] If an excommunicate sought to enter church with the congregation, either he had to be forcibly expelled or the service could not proceed.[165] If he continued in his contempt of court he made himself liable to the greater excommunication,[166] and then he was virtually an outcast from the society of his fellow parishioners.[167] That excommunication was feared by the great majority of parish folk there is no reason to doubt. Certainly the greater excommunication might seriously injure a man in his business as well as his social interests, not to mention the trouble and expense of getting an absolution.[168] That excommunication reduced most offenders to order the church court proceedings demonstrate. If, however, a man were obdurate and hardened he was turned over to the Queen's High Commissioners, and these, while making the fullest use of ecclesiastical procedure and the oath ex officio,[169] also freely employed the penalties of the temporal courts, viz., fines and imprisonments. As no ecclesiastical offence was too small for the Commissioners to deal with, and as their jurisdiction was not limited (like that of the ordinaries) to a district or a diocese, courts of High Commission may be called universal ordinaries.[170] Finally, if a person stood excommunicate over forty days, an ecclesiastical judge, on application to the diocesan, might procure against him out of Chancery the writ De excommunicato capiendo. This writ was probably not very often resorted to in practice, partly because of the great expense involved, and partly perhaps, too, because of the slack execution of the writ by certain undersheriffs or bailiffs, encouraged as they were by the rather hostile attitude sometimes assumed against the courts Christian by the Queen's temporal judges.[171] The writ was, however, certainly no dead letter, and served also in terrorem to reduce stubborn offenders.[172] Indeed Archbishop Bancroft in 1605 called it "the chiefest temporal strength of ecclesiastical jurisdiction."[173]

In view of the fact that "standing excommunicate" was in itself a presentable offence before the ordinary, and an offence often presented,[174] and in view of the further fact that the excommunicate might, according to a contemporary who writes with authority, "be punished for absence from diuine praier, neither shall his excommunication excuse him, for it is in his owne default,"[175] it is queried whether such an involuntary absentee from church did not make himself just as liable to presentment at quarter sessions for recusancy[176] as any voluntary recusant. Perhaps it is for this reason that grand juries are sometimes complained of for discriminating among the names sent in to them on the bishops' certificates for indictment at quarter sessions, and for certifying some and throwing out others "at their pleasure."[177]

But be this as it may—and it is conjecture unsupported by positive proof—enough has been said, it is hoped, to show that ordinaries were quite capable of making their decrees obeyed, and that excommunication (contrary to the commonly received opinion) was a most effective means of coercion. Many, indeed, were its uses. It might (or its equivalent interdiction or suspension[178]), as has been seen,[179] be used to compel a parish officer to perform the duties of his office. It might also be employed, when persuasion failed, to induce a parishioner to accept office when chosen by his fellows.[180] But, it would seem, one single definition would comprise all cases: excommunication was employed against all those who disobeyed some order of the spiritual judge, express or implied—it was a summary process for contempt of court, in fact, and was daily used as such.

To recapitulate: a very large part of the parishioner's life and activity fell under the surveillance and regulation of the ecclesiastical courts. They compelled him to attend on specified days his parish church, and no other; to be married there; to have his children baptized and his wife churched there; to receive a certain number of times communion there; to contribute to the maintenance of church and churchyard, as well as to the finding of the requisites for service or the church ornaments or utensils. In his parish church he and his children were catechized and instructed, and, if the latter were taught in a neighboring school-house, it was under the strict supervision of the ordinary and by his or the bishop's licence and allowance. So true was this that the schoolmaster was, like the parson, a church officer. For the parishioner his church was the place of business where all local affairs, civil or ecclesiastical, were transacted, as well as the centre of social life in the village. Here the mandates of the authorities in Church and State were read to him; here he was admonished of his duty to contribute to, or to perform, the burdens of parish administration and warned of the penalties for neglect; here he met with his fellows to settle parish affairs and audit parish accounts, or to choose parish officers under the auspices of the ordinary, being himself compelled, if necessary, by that official to serve when his own turn for office came round. As churchwarden it was his duty to collect the rents from parish lands and tenements, and to see that parish offerings were gathered and the parish rates assessed and paid, or recovered by means of the ecclesiastical courts. If the church was ruinous; if bread and wine were lacking for the communion; if any of the books, furniture, utensils or ornaments enjoined by the diocesan's articles or by the canons were missing; if the curate did not follow the Rubric, or retained "superstitious" rites; if the yearly perambulation was omitted; if faults of the minister or of the parishioners were not presented: he and his fellow-warden were held responsible by the official.

The machinery which the canon and the civil law placed at the disposal of the ordinary for his judicial administration of the parish was extraordinarily flexible. Courts Christian were unencumbered by the formalities of the common law or by the coöperation of juries. They could proceed ex officio, i.e., without formal presentment and upon hearsay only, and they were armed with the formidable power of administering the oath ex officio by which a parishioner was forced to disclose all he knew against himself. They could in all cases command the doing, as well as the giving[181] of a thing—powers far more extensive than those possessed by any court of equity of today. Lastly, it was their custom to require that a return be made in court, or in other words, a certification, that their commands had been duly performed—thus stamping them as true administrative bodies. It was inevitable from the nature of their jurisdiction and procedure that abuses should be committed both by ecclesiastical judges and by their officers, such as registrars, proctors and apparitors. These judges wielded an admirable instrument of administration and discipline, one that could be bent to meet any emergency, but this efficiency had been attained at the sacrifice of some indispensable safeguards for the carrying out of impartial justice. First, no parishioner's acts, whether done in an official or a private capacity, were ever quite safe from misrepresentation, or downright falsification by his enemies, for secret denunciation to wardens or sidemen (or to the ordinary himself) by any one[182] might start a proceeding against the person denounced and force him upon oath to disclose the most private, the most confidential, matters. Again, proctors, apparitors, registrars, and other scribes whose fees depended on citations and the drawing up of court proceedings, documents, or certificates, had every interest in haling persons before the official, because court fees had to be paid whether a man were found innocent or guilty.[183] Hence the system tended to create spies, of whom the chief were the apparitors, or summoners, and their underlings. There is a very interesting contemporary ballad entitled "A new Ballad of the Parrator and the Divell," attributed by its modern editor to not later than 1616, which throws much light on the proceedings of certain unscrupulous apparitors, and reflects also the strong dislike entertained for the whole tribe of apparitors by people of the time.[184] The devil going a hunting one Sunday and beating the bushes, up starts a proud apparitor. During several stanzas the apparitor narrates to the devil, as one consummately wicked man to another, all the tricks of his trade to drum up cases for himself and his court. He spies on lovers as they pass unsuspecting; he haunts the ale-houses and overhears men's tales over their cups; if business be dull he even devises scandal among neighbors, and sets them at enmity. Thus he concocts his accusations of immorality, or drunkenness, or profanity, or uncharity towards neighbors, and writes them busily down in his quorum nomina, or formulas of citations to appear before the official's court. "My corum nomine beares such swaye," he boasts, "They'le sell their clothes my fees to pay." But, remarks the devil after listening to all this, surely the innocent pay no court fees, "But answere and discharged bee." "My corum nomine sayth not so," rejoins the apparitor, "For all pay fees before they goe.—The lawier's fees must needs be payd,—And every clarke in his degree—Or els the lawe cannot be stayd—But excommunicate must they bee." The devil, amazed and disgusted at laws which "excell the paines of hell," turns to go, whereupon the apparitor seeks to arrest and fine him for traveling on the Sabbath. Exclaiming "Thou art no constable!" the devil pounces upon the unworthy officer and carries him off to hell.[185] Thirdly, even when at their best and conducted by upright judges and officers, the modes of proof in force in the courts Christian were sometimes utterly inadequate as means for getting at the truth. The inquest, or trial by jury, had never been introduced into these courts, where the archaic system of compurgation[186] still lingered.

If a man for want of friends, or for want of good reputation, were unable to procure compurgators to attend him at visitations or courts, held sometimes twenty miles and more away,[187] he might be condemned as guilty of specific acts which he had never committed.[188] He might even fail in his proof because he was poor. When the judge arraigned Lewis Billings of Barking, Essex archdeaconry, for "that he hath failed in his purgacion," Billings pleaded "that he is a very poore man and not able to procure his neighbours to come to the cort, and beare their charges."[189] But, as is well known, contemporaries attacked not only the inferior officers, but the judges themselves. Complaints of great abuses were loud and long,[190] and when the ecclesiastical courts were abolished by the Long Parliament in 1641,[191] the satirical literature of the day celebrated their downfall with a verve, a gusto, and an exultation amazing to one not familiar with the procedure of these courts.[192]