Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T20:35:46.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

II. Bishop Wren and the Suppression of the Norwich Lecturers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Peter King
Peter King
Affiliation:
College of Commerce, Bristol
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the most serious problems facing Archbishop Laud was the rapid growth of the Lecturer Movement during the 1620s and 1630s. The increasing numbers of graduates available, and the increasing amount of money donated to support them meant that the weekly lectures had become one of the chief “religious … organizations of the opposition”, and were beginning to “undermine the hierarchical principle”. The gravity of the situation was marked by the increasingly stringent regulation of the lecturers. They had originally been allowed to preach with very little control, but from the Canons of 1604 onwards they were made the subject of several new regulations. These culminated in the Directions of March 16296 which, although issued by Archbishop Abbot, were based upon suggestions made by Laud to the king. Soon afterwards the lecturers in London Diocese were curtailed as a prelude to Laud's future work as archbishop. The Directions were reissued in January 1634, and a policy of deliberately reducing certain kinds of lecturer was initiated in several dioceses, pursued in the Metropolitical Visitation, and completed by Laud's supporters amongst the bishops.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , June 1968 , pp. 237 - 254
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 In the eighty years from 1580 to 1660 £70,267 was donated to lecturers. Of this £46,253 was donated between 1601 and 1640. Jordan, W. K., Philanthropy in England (1959), pp. 300, 312–13 and 375.Google Scholar

2 Curtis, M. H., “Alienated Intellectuals of Early Stuart England”, Past and Present, XXIII (1962), 25 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar suggests that by the 1630s there was a surplus of 100 graduates a year who could become lecturers. S.P. Dom. 16/117, fos. 102–3, 22 September 1628 for Wren's view on the excessive number of graduates.

3 Owen, H. G., “Lectures and Lecturers in Tudor London”, Church Quarterly Review, CLXII (1961), 69, “endowments grew more popular in the Jacobean Age’.Google Scholar

4 Hill, C., Economic Problems of the Church… (Oxford, 1956), p. 344.Google Scholar

5 Hill, C., Society and Puritanism… (1964), p. 90.Google Scholar

6 The regulations are in Rushworth, W., Historical Collections… (1721), II, 7–8.Google Scholar

7 Calder, I. M., “A 17th-century Attempt to Purify the Anglican Church”, American Historical Review, LIII (1948), 760 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Hill, C., Society and Puritanism, op. cit. p. 113,Google Scholar “the harrying of lecturers became official policy’.

9 Heylyn, P., Cyprianus Anglicus (1668), pp. 342–3, made the claim of complete successGoogle Scholar. Hill, C., The Century of Revolution (Edinburgh, 1961), p. 90 accepts that Laud “very largely succeeded’ in this respect.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Wren, C., Parentalia or Memoirs of the Family of the Wrens (1750), pp. 93 ff.,Google Scholar answer to Article XIII of the bishop's impeachment in 1641. Wren stressed the size of the diocese and that it was only visited once every seven years instead of the usual triennial visitation, op. cit. Article XXII, pp. 109 ff. Browne, J., History of Congregationalism…in Norfolk and Suffolk (1877), pp. 10 f. refers to the Puritan tradition.Google Scholar

11 Hill, C., Society and Puritanism, op. cit. p. 105.Google Scholar

12 Scott, W. and Bliss, J. (eds.), The Works of William Laud (Oxford, 1847–1860), v, 334–13Google Scholar

13 Cal.S.P.Dom., 1635, introduction pp. xxx-xxxiii, Abstract of the Metropolitical Visitation of Archbishop Laud.

14 Trevor-Roper, H.R., Archbishop Laud (1962), p. 185.Google Scholar For Corbet's harshness see Browne, J., op. cit. p. 83,Google Scholar and for his dilatoriness Autobiography of Sir Simonds D'Ewes, ed. Halliwell, J. O. (1854), II, 103.Google Scholar

15 Biographica Britannica (1766), VI, Part 11, pp. 4353 f.Google Scholar Wren was consecrated in November, Wood, A., Athenae Oxienses, ed. Bliss, P. (1813–1920), III, 885–87.Google Scholar

16 Tanner MSS. 68, fo. 316,Google Scholar March 1636, Wren explained to Charles the reasons for his delay. Wren's activity as Clerk of the Closet had delayed his appearance in his previous diocese. Laud, , Works, op. cit. v, 335.Google Scholar

17 S.P.Dom., 16/295, fo. 48, 11 September 1635.

18 Heylyn, P., op. cit. p. 310.Google Scholar

19 Bosher, R. S., The Making of the Restoration Settlement (1951), p. 19.Google Scholar

20 Trevor-Roper, H. R., op. cit. p. 313.Google Scholar

21 Laud, , Works, op. cit. v, 342.Google Scholar

22 Ibid.; Tanner MSS. 70, fo. 103 (20 August 1636),Google Scholar ‘His Majesty was pleased to tell me not to desist from enforcing all canonical obedience with his gracious promise that he would support me’, wrote Wren to Laud.

23 Laud, , Works, op. cit. v, 350 f.Google Scholar

24 Ibid. p. 364.

25 Simpkins, M. E., ‘Ecclesiastical History from 1279’, Victoria County History (Norfolk), II, 284;Google ScholarCal.S.P.Col., 1574–60, p. 174. Henry Dade reported to Laud on the seriously troubled state of the diocese.

26 Trevor-Roper, H. R., op. cit. p. 194.Google Scholar

27 Brinkworth, E. R. C., ‘The Laudian Church in Buckinghamshire’, University of Birmingham Historical Journal, v (1955), 59.Google Scholar

28 The Visitation Articles of Bishop Matthew Wren (1636), Thomason Collection, Brit. Mus., E 238 (1), Section IX, cap. 9.

29 H.M.Comm. Gawdy MSS. p. 158;Google ScholarAnthony Mingay told Framlingham Gawdy that ‘our new visitors are very strict here…and do menace much conformity…’. The Diary of John Rons, ed. Green, M. A. E., Camden Society (1856), v, 80,Google Scholar and Sir Simonds D'Ewes’ Autobiography, op. cit. II, 141 f. for the hostile reaction.Google Scholar

30 Soden, G. I., Godfrey Goodman, Bishop of Gloucester (1953), p. 263.Google Scholar

31 Ibid. p. 171.

32 Wren, C., Parentalia, op. cit. p. 109.Google Scholar There was duplication, i.e. Section II, cap. 3 and Section IV, cap. 13; Section IV, cap. 21 and Section v, cap. I; and Section II, cap. 10 and Section VII, cap. 4.

33 Correspondence of John Cosin, ed. Ornsby, G., Surtees Society (1868), LII, 122–3Google Scholar gives fuller details than Cosin, , Works (Oxford, 1853), IIGoogle Scholar

34 Ibid. Section xv, cap. 8, and Section xv, cap. 10.

35 Visitation Articles, op. cit. Section III, cap. 10 and Section IV, cap. 42.

36 Ibid. Section IV, cap. 43.

37 Ibid. Section VII, cap. 7, Section I, cap. 3, and Section IV, cap. 34.

38 Ibid Section IV, cap. 49.

39 Ibid. Section IV, cap. 44.

40 Ibid. Section IV, cap. 45.

41 Ibid. Section IV, cap. 49.

42 Ibid. Section IV, cap. 47.

43 Ibid. Section VII, cap. 8.

44 Perry, G. G., History of the Church of England (1861), I,Google Scholar Appendix, there is a printed version of the Injunctions for which no source is given. The quotations from the Injunctions given above are from Lambeth MSS. 943:611.

45 Lambeth MSS. 943:611, article 19.

46 Ibid, article 21.

47 Ibid, article 20.

48 Ibid, article 18.

49 D. W. Boorman, Oxford B.Litt. 1959: The Administrative and Disciplinary problems of the Church on the eve of the Civil War in the light of the extant records of the Dioceses of Norwich and Ely under Bishop Wren.

50 Tanner MSS. 68, fo. 92, 2 May 1636. Notice that Wren felt that negligence made a man ‘unworthy’ of a lectureship. He conceded that there were good lecturers. He told Laud that one lecturer Dr Jones was ‘an eminent man’. Prynne, W., Canterburies Doome (1646), p. 375.Google Scholar

51 Tanner MSS. 68, fo. 2, 3 June 1636.

52 In at least two cases Wren is found allowing men to resume lecturing after Corbet had stopped them. Wren, C., Parentalia, op. cit. pp. 100 f.Google Scholar, answer to Article XVI of the Impeachment, and Rawl. MSS. C 368, 14 August 1636, 29 September 1636.

53 Laud, , Works, op. cit. v, 339 f.,Google ScholarTanner MSS, 68, fo. 173.Google Scholar

54 Prynne, W., Canterburies Doome, op. cit. p. 375;Google Scholar Montague said ‘much good may ensue and be procured if well and discreetly managed’ from the lecturers.

55 Trevor-Roper, H. R., Archbishop Laud, op. cit. p. 119,Google Scholar says that Laud himself ‘could not afford to be as rigid as he is sometimes represented to be in his treatment of lecturers’, e.g. S.P.Dom., 16/167 fo. 34 and S.P.Dom., 16/169 fo. 23 cited as examples.

56 Laud, , Works, op. cit. v, 339 f.Google Scholar It was to avoid such troubles as might ensue from completely itinerant and irregular lecturers that Wren insisted on their undertaking a cure, Trevor-Roper, H. R., Archbishop Laud, op. cit. p. 106,Google Scholar ‘when a lecturer was appointed by an independent authority, such as a corporation, he was not to begin his career of preaching till he had undertaken to accept a living’.

57 Prynne, W., Canterburies Doome, op. cit. p. 375.Google Scholar

58 Laud, , Works, op. cit. v, 33.Google Scholar

59 Ibid.

60 Prynne, W., op. cit. p. 375.Google Scholar

61 Cal.S.P.Dom. 1635, introduction pp. xxx-xxxiii, comment by Sir Nathaniel Brent.

62 Laud, Works, op. cit. v, 339.Google Scholar

63 Wren, C., Parentalia, op. cit. pp. 100 f., answer to Article xvi of the impeachment.Google Scholar

64 Laud, , Works, op. cit. v, 350.Google Scholar

65 Ibid.

66 Ibid, v, 339.

67 Hill, C., Society and Puritanism, op. cit. p. 105.Google Scholar

68 Prynne, W., Canterburies Doome op. cit. p. 374.Google Scholar

69 Tanner MSS. 68, fo. 327, 29 March 1638. H.M.Comm. Ninth Report, appendix, p. 261 for details of the Ipswich troubles.

70 Wren, C., Parentalia, op. cit. p. 51.Google Scholar

71 Much useful information on Wren's activities is to be found in Rawl. MSS. C 368, fos. 2–18, where there are abstracts from his letters. All references to the letters which are dated in chronological order are given by date only. Rawl. MSS. C 368, 22 April 1636; 5 January 1636; and 24 March 1636.

72 Rawl. MSS. C 368, 28 February 1635; and 24 September 1636.

73 Ibid. August (undated) 1638; 21 March 1638; Tanner MSS. 68, fo. 61; and provisions in the Visitation Articles, i.e. Section IX, cap. 8 and 9.

74 Tanner MSS. 68, fo. 24, 2 March 1636, Corbet's extreme directions to the clergy of Norwich heavily scored by the bishop. Wren clearly disagreed with Corbet's extremism, i.e, Tanner MSS. 68, fo. 39, 31 March 1636, ‘I am sorry that you and I differ so much…I suffer so much by you…It was for your sake that I was induced to act…’. In individual cases Wren was lenient. Tanner MSS. 68, fos. 296 f., Thomas Scot said ‘in most things your lordship's sweet hand hath so mollified my mind…that I have observed sundry of your lordship's directions’. Cf. Rawl. MSS. C 368, 29 September 1636; and 24 March 1636.

75 Heylyn, P., op. cit. pp. 300–10.Google Scholar

76 Tanner MSS. 68, fo. 86, 8 May 1636. Dean Hassall wrote ‘Good Luck have those with thine honour, ride on … what furtherance your lordship's humble servant … can give to this great work shall never be wanting’. Cf. Tanner MSS. 68, fo. 309, 2 March 1637, letter of Fulke Robartes.

77 The Impeachment Articles exhibited against Matthew Wren, Bishop of Ely, xvi, printed in Nalson, J., An Impartial Collection… (1786), I, 398 f.Google Scholar Typical of the accusation that he suppressed preaching were Prynne, W., Newes from Ipswich, London 1641 (reprint), p. 5,Google Scholar E 177 (12), and Wren's Anatomy, anon. 1641, p. 8, E 166 (7), Thomason Collection, Brit. Mus.

78 Church Quarterly Review, CLXII (1961), 63 ff.Google Scholar

79 Tanner MSS. 145, fo. i, Wren's comments on the bill to abolish pluralities in 1641. He said that ‘the 20th part of single benefices are not worth £30 a year’. Since ‘the best wits will ever apply themselves to the best rewards’ Wren realized that there would be a definite loss of talent in the Church.

80 Laud, , Works, op. cit. v, 339 f.Google Scholar

81 Church Quarterly Review, CLXII (1961), 71.Google Scholar

82 Tanner MSS. 68, fo. 127, 7 July 1636. Anne d. of Sir John Glenham (a friend of Lord Holland) and Lady Dorchester complained; Tanner MSS. 68, fo. 248, 21 September 1637, Lord Holland (a friend of Pym) wrote to complain.

83 Bernard, R., The Faithful Shepherd (1605), p. 5:Google Scholar ‘because men of might and the noble hold it derogatory to their dignities’ they would not serve the Church. Wren resisted the idea that the nobles and gentry could do as they pleased; L'Estrange, H., The Reign…of Charles I, 2nd ed. 1656, p. 14;Google Scholar Wren hoped to see the day when the minister ‘shall be as good a man as any Jack Gentleman in England’. Rawl. MSS. C 368, February 1639, ‘Sir Miles Sandys nor any other lord shall not carry these things’.

4 Prynne, W., A Looking Glasse for all Lordly Prelates (1636), pp. 71–5Google Scholar gives an account of the case. Wren told Lord Brooke, ‘No Lord of England should affront him in his diocese in such a manner’. Tanner MSS. 70, fo. 103 (20 August 1636) gives Wren's account of the incident.

85 Hill, C., Society and Puritanism, op. cit. p. 92.Google Scholar

86 Past and Present, XXIII (1962), 25 f.Google Scholar pointed out that of the 70 lecturers in the Diocese of York in 1614 only 2 had no degree; Suffolk Archaeology, VI (1888), and XII (1901) gives the returns for the archdeacon's visitation in 1603. Of the 23 ministers who are listed with degrees, 12 were chaplains.Google Scholar

87 Cal. Bord. Papers, II, 171.Google Scholar

88 For details see Hill, C., ‘Puritans and the Dark Corners of the Land’, T.R.H.S. 5th ser., XIII (1963).Google Scholar

89 Tanner MSS. 145, fo. 1.

90 Rawl. MSS. C 368, 7 February 1635.

91 Bishop Redman's Visitation, ed. Williams, J. F., Norfolk Record Society XVIII (1946), p. 17Google Scholar also notes that in the returns for 1603 there were 396 preachers out of c. 1081 clergy.

92 Add. MSS. (BM), 4705, fo. 22.Google Scholar

93 Tanner MSS. 145, fo. 1 estimated that out of 10,000 parsonages, 3,500 were impropriations, and 400 were double benefices.

94 Hill, C., Economic Problems of the Church, op. cit. pp. 132, 239.Google Scholar

95 Suffolk Archaeology, op. cit.

96 Nalson, , op. cit. pp. 398 f.,Google Scholar Sir Thomas Widdrington said ‘next for preaching. That he is most able in his kind is agreed by all.’

97 Prynne, W., A Looking-Glasse, op. cit. p 97.Google Scholar

98 D'Ewes, Autobiography, op. cit. II, 143 accused Wren of suspending clergy for preaching, but none for not preaching ‘although many idle drones’.Google Scholar

99 The Journal of Sir Simonds D'Ewes, ed. Coates, W. H. (1942), p. 46.Google Scholar

100 The Visitation of 1614, ed. Rev. Precentor Venables. Papers of the Associated Architectural Societies, xvi (1881–1883), 47.Google Scholar

101 Rawl. MSS. C 368, 7 September 1637; and 14 September 1637.

102 Hill, C., Society and Puritanism, op. cit. p. 38.Google Scholar

103 Clarendon, Lord, History of the Rebellion…, ed. Macray, W. D. (Oxford, 1888), iv, 194.Google Scholar

104 Langston, J. N., ‘John Workman, Puritan Lecturer’, Trans. Bristol and Gloucester Arch. Soc. LXVI (1945), 219.Google Scholar

105 American Historical Review, LIII (1948), 760 f.Google Scholar

106 Trans. Bristol and Gloucester Arch. Soc. LXVI (1945), 218.Google Scholar The stress on control of the church is correct, but they were not strict Calvinists, Davies, H., The Worship of the English Puritans (1948), pp. 38, 41 and 48.Google Scholar

107 Tatham, G. B., The Puritans in Power (Cambridge, 1913), p. 5.Google Scholar

108 Hill, C., Society and Puritanism op. cit. p. 92.Google Scholar

109 Heylyn, P.Cyprianus Anglicus, op. cit. p. 129.Google Scholar

110 Barnard, J., The Life of Peter Heylyn (Cambridge, 1849), I, lxxix–xci.Google Scholar

111 Marchant, R. A., The Puritans and the Church Courts in the Diocese of York (1960), pp. 48–9.Google Scholar

112 Hill, C., Society and Puritanism, op. cit. pp. 80, 81 and 90.Google Scholar

113 Rushworth, W., Collections, op. cit. 1, 645.Google Scholar

114 Laud, , Works, op. cit. III, 253; iv, 303.Google Scholar Definite clashes of authority between priest and people were leading to ugly scenes, and some sort of regulation was clearly necessary. For a typical case see Renshaw, W. C., ‘Notes from the Act Books of the Archdeaconry Court of Lewes’, Sussex Archaeological Collections, XLIX (1906), 60, giving details of events at Rye.Google Scholar

115 Heylyn, P., Cyprianus Anglicus, op. cit. p. 282.Google Scholar

116 Rushworth, W., Collections, op. cit. II, 7.Google Scholar

117 Prynne, W., Canterburies Doome, op. cit. p. 375.Google Scholar

118 Prynne, W., A Looking-Glasse, op. cit. p. 71.Google Scholar

119 Lambeth MSS. 943, fo. 615. Sir John Cutts’ chaplain was chaplain as well to the earl of Suffolk. Wren also found in Norwich Diocese that there were ‘some divines that are beneficed in towns or near but live in gentlemen's houses’. S.P.Dom., 16/337, fos. 36–37, 7 Dec. 1636.

120 Selden, J., Table Talk, ed. Pollock, Sir Frederick (1927), p. 105.Google Scholar

121 Laud, , Works, op. cit, v, 350 f.Google Scholar

122 Wren, C., Parentalia, op. cit. pp. 100 f.: answer of Wren to Article xvi of the Impeachment.Google Scholar

123 Davies, H., Worship of English Puritans, op. cit. pp. 42–3.Google Scholar

124 Ibid. pp. 38, 41, 42, 44 and 47.

126 Cardwell, E., Documentary Annals…of the Church of England (Oxford, 1844), II, 191.Google Scholar

126 Collectanea Curiosa (Oxford, 1781), ed. Gutch, J.; contains Wren, M., Of the Progress of Revolutions in England, I, 231.Google Scholar

127 Wren, M., A Sermon preached…on Sunday the 17th February last at Whitehall (1627).Google Scholar

128 Tanner MSS. 92, fo. 8.

129 Rawl. MSS. C 368, 14 September 1637.

130 Victoria County History (Essex), II, 52; article by J. C. Cox on the Church.Google Scholar

131 Victoria County History (Bucks), I, 311 f.;Google Scholar article by Sister Elspeth on the Church.

132 Blomefield, F., History of Norfolk (1805–10), III, 566, Cal.S.P.Dom. 1623, 1624, various references.Google Scholar

133 Hill, C., Economic Problems of the Church, op. cit. p. 269.Google Scholar

134 Blomefield, F., op. cit. XI, 368 f.;Google ScholarCal.S.P.Dom. 1631–3 and 1635, various references.

135 Laud, , Works, op. cit. v, 340,Google ScholarCal.S.P.Dom. 1635, introduction pp. xxx-xxxiii, Abstract of the Metropolitan Visitation of Archbishop Laud.

136 Hill, C., Society and Puritanism, op. cit. pp. 105 ff.Google Scholar for details of various lectures in the diocese and elsewhere. Blomefield, F., op. cit. III, 374;Google ScholarLaud, , Works, op. cit. v, 328 and 340.Google Scholar

137 Blomefield, F., op. cit. IV, 23.Google Scholar

188 Browne, J., History of Congregationalism… (1877), p. 142;Google ScholarCal.S.P.Col. 1574–60, p.174; Rushworth, W., op. cit. II, 301;Google ScholarRaven, J. J., History of Norfolk (1895), pp. 204–5;Google ScholarCal.S.P.Dom. 1635, various references; Cal.S.P.Dom. 1633–4, p. 450, 4 February 1634; Laud, , Works, op. cit. v, 340.Google Scholar

139 The Journal of Sir Simonds D'Ewes, ed. Notestein, W. (Yale, 1923) p. 343.Google Scholar

140 Heylyn, P., Cyprianus Anglicus, op. cit. pp. 343–3;Google ScholarWren's Anatomy, anon. (1641), p. 8, E 166 (7);Google Scholar Thomason Tract, Brit. Mus. ‘to hinder all God's preaching…to forbid all lectures’.

141 Laud, , Works, op. cit. v, 339 f. and 350 f.Google Scholar

142 Ibid, v, 364.

143 Nalson, J., op. cit. II, 398 ff., clause xvi of the Impeachment.Google Scholar

144 Wren, C., Parentalia, op. cit. p. 100, answer to article xvi of the Impeachment.Google Scholar

145 Rawl. MSS. C 368, 21 February 1635.

146 Wren, C., Parentalia, op. cit. pp. 100 f.Google Scholar

147 Laud, , Works, op. cit. v, 350 f.Google Scholar

148 Ibid, v, 339 f. and 350 f., and Wren, C., Parentalia, op. cit. p. 100.Google Scholar

149 S.P.Dom., 16/337, fo. 36.

150 Rawl. MSS. C 368, 7 and 14 September 1637.

151 Ibid. 24 September 1636; Prynne, W., Canterburies Doome, op. cit. p. 375.Google Scholar

152 Laud, , Works, op. cit. v, 339, 350;Google ScholarRawl. MSS. C 368, 12 July 1636.

153 Laud, , Works, op. cit. v, 339 f.Google Scholar

154 Rawl. MSS. C 368, 22 April 1636, inhibiting Haverhill lecture.

155 Laud, , Works, op. cit. v, 339 f.;Google ScholarWren, C., Parentalia, op. cit. pp. 100 ff.Google Scholar

156 Laud, , Works, op. cit. v, 350;Google ScholarWren, C., Parentalia, op. cit. pp. 100 ff.Google Scholar

157 This supports H. R. Trevor-Roper's view of Laud's policy (Archbishop Laud, op. cit. 119).

158 A similar policy was pursued by other bishops like Goodman who ‘suppressed some lecturers and put in others’.

159 Barnes, T. G., ‘County Politics and a Puritan Cause Célèbre: Somerset Church Ales’, T.R.H.S. 5th ser. IX (1959), 122:Google Scholar ‘though there can be no denying the importance of the religious issue in advancing the breach within the Church, yet the destructive force of the local factionalism which dominated the controversy, if multiplied by all the counties of the kingdom, might have been as injurious to the peace as religious issues’.