The Re-Establishment of the Church of England, 1660–1663

Anne Whiteman

doi:10.2307/3678900

The Re-Establishment of the Church of England, 1660–1663

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2009

Anne Whiteman

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

After a period of comparative neglect, the ecclesiastical history of the Restoration has recently again attracted the attention of historians. Dr.Bosher's Making of the Restoration Settlement has luminously exposed the politics by which the Church of England recaptured the establishment, and Mr. A. G. Matthews, by tracing the biographies of the Anglicans displaced during the Interregnum and the Non-Anglicans ejected after the king's return, has shown how changes in doctrine and discipline affected the ministry during these years. Here an attempt will be made to discuss another aspect of the re-establishment: its administrative reconstruction. Dr.Bosher has shown how the exigencies of politics led to the piecemeal restoration of Anglicanism, instead of the immediate ecclesiastical revolution which, from a legal point of view, could have been attempted. That the traditional episcopal administration was thereby eventually reconstructed is of course well known, but it seems worth asking what light the administrative records of certain dioceses can throw not only on the details of how this took place, but also on the structure and character of the revived system.

Type: Research Article
Information: Transactions of the Royal Historical Society , Volume 5 , January 1955 , pp. 111 - 131

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3678900 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1955

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

^{page 111 note 1} Bosher, R. S., The Making of the Restoration Settlement, 1649–1662 (1951)Google Scholar; Matthews, A. G., Walker Revised and Calamy Revised (1948, 1934)Google Scholar.

^{page 111 note 2} Bosher, , op. cit., cc. iv, vGoogle Scholar.

^{page 111 note 3} Ibid., p. 216 and ch. iv.

^{page 112 note 1} By 13 Car. II, St. 1, c. 12.

^{page 112 note 2} Cardwell, E., Documentary Annals of the Reformed Church of England (1844), ii. 285–301Google Scholar; Bosher, , op. cit., pp. 184 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 112 note 3} Bosher, , op. cit., pp. 230–1Google Scholar; for later schemes, cf. Bodleian, MSS. Tanner 280, fos. 189 ff.; 315, fos. 98 ff.

^{page 112 note 4} Burnet, G., History of My Own Time, ed. Airy, O. (1897), i. 329–30Google Scholar; cf. Supplement to Burnet's History of My Own Time, ed. Foxcroft, H. C. (1902), pp. 329–30, 498–506Google Scholar.

^{page 112 note 5} Sykes, N., Church and State in England in the XVIIIth century (1934), pp. 11–12, 300–1, 310 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 113 note 1} For permission to consult these records, I am indebted to Major-General Sir Godwin Michelmore, Registrar to the Lord Bishop of Exeter; to Miss M. P. Crighton, lately Honorary Librarian, and Miss O. M. Moger, lately Honorary Archivist, of Exeter Cathedral Library; to Mr. A. M. Barker, Registrar to the Lord Bishop of Salisbury; to the late Rev. Chancellor Dimont and the late Rev. Canon Quirk, and to Mrs. J. Varley and Miss D. Williamson, Archivists to the Lincolnshire Archives Committee. I should also like to thank Miss Kathleen Major for much help and encouragement. Her paper on ‘The Lincoln Diocesan Records’, Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc., 4th Ser., xxii (1940), 39–66Google Scholar, admirably illustrates the continuity of ecclesiastical administration and its records.

^{page 113 note 2} In the Bodleian Library.

^{page 113 note 3} Bosher, , Restoration Settlement, p. 161Google Scholar; cf. pp. 159 ff.

^{page 113 note 4} Exeter, Cathedral Library, D. & C. MS. 3559, fos. 1–10 and passim; Harte, W. J., ‘Ecclesiastical and Religious Affairs in Exeter, 1640–1662’, Trans. Devon. Assoc., lxix (1937), 41–72Google Scholar.

^{page 114 note 1} Salisbury, Cathedral Muniment Room, Greenhill and Butler Reg., fos. 1–6.

^{page 114 note 2} Lincoln, D. & C. A/3/9, fo. 207r.; Matthews, , Walker Revised, p. 9Google Scholar; Bosher, , op. cit., pp. 89 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 114 note 3} Well illustrated by Exeter, Cath. Libr., D. & C. MSS. 3601, 3611^a, 3713, 3753, 3787, 3802, 4036.

^{page 114 note 4} Salisbury, Cath. Munt. Room, Greenhill and Butler Reg., fos. 12–16V.; Exeter, Diocesan Registry, Bp's MSS. 1128–35.

^{page 114 note 5} s Exeter, Dioc. Regy., Bp's MS. 44^c, p. 103.

^{page 114 note 6} Exeter, Dioc. Regy., Bp's MSS. 50^A; 24, fo. ir.

^{page 114 note 7} Lincoln, Reg. xxxi, p. 129; Reg. xxxii, fo. ir.

^{page 114 note 8} Hereford Diocesan Registry, Reg. 1635–67, fo. 185V. I am indebted to the Registrar to the Lord Bishop of Hereford, Mr. P. Gwynne James, for permission to examine the records.

^{page 115 note 1} Bodl., MS. Oxf. Dioc. Papers d. 106, fos. 9r., ir.; Salisbury, Dioc. Regy., Reg. 1644–74.

^{page 115 note 2} Lincoln, Reg. xxxii, fos. ir., iv.; Bodl., MSS. Oxf. Archd. papers–dash; Berks c. 80, fos. 151v., 153r.; c.81, passim.

^{page 115 note 3} Exeter, Dioc. Regy., Bp's MS. 50^a; Salisbury, Dioc. Regy., Subscription Book 1662–87 (including some Exeter ordinations). In arriving at these totals, candidates who received both orders in the diocese have only been counted once.

^{page 115 note 4} E.g. Exeter, Roborough Library, Ordination Papers, Bundle 1, list of candidates, 21 Sept. 16625 cf. Dioc. Regy., Bp's MS. 50^A.

^{page 115 note 5} Exeter, Dioc. Regy., Bp's MS. 50^A; Salisbury, Dioc. Regy., Subscription Book 1662–87; checked by reference to Foster, J., Alumni Oxonienses, 1500–1714 (1891–2) and J. and Venn, J. A., Alumni Cantabrigienses Part I (to tySi) (1922–7)Google Scholar.

^{page 116 note 1} Salisbury, Dioc. Regy., Reg. 1644–74; Bodl., MS. Oxf. Dioc. Papers d. 106, fos. 19V., 20r.; Foster and Venn, opp. citt.

^{page 116 note 2} Exeter, Rob. Libr., Ordination Papers, Bundle 1; Dioc. Regy., Bp's MS. 50^A (25 March and 13 Jan. 1661).

^{page 116 note 3} Salisbury, Dioc. Regy., Reg. 1644–74 (1 Oct. 1662); D.N.B.

^{page 116 note 4} Exeter, Dioc. Regy., Bp's MS. 50^A; Lincoln, Reg. xxxi; Bodl., MS. Oxf. Dioc. Papers d. 106.

^{page 116 note 5} E.g. at Exeter in 1662–3, Thomas Chanon (c.40), George Prowse (053), William Orchard (c.52). Exeter, Dioc. Regy., Bp's MS. 50^A; Foster, op. cit.

^{page 116 note 6} Exeter, Dioc. Regy., Bp's MS. 50^A; Salisbury, Dioc. Regy., Regg. 1644–74, 1674–88; Subscription Book, 1662–87.

^{page 116 note 7} Bodl., MSS. Tanner 134, fo. 27V.; 29, fos. 28r., 39r.

^{page 117 note 1} Wilkins, D., Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae (1737), iv. 582, 600 612–14Google Scholar.

^{page 117 note 2} Ibid., iv. 600; Exeter, Rob. Libr., Ordination Papers, Bundle 1.

^{page 117 note 3} Cf. Sykes, , Church and State, pp. 96 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 117 note 4} Supplement to Burnet's History, ed. Foxcroft, , pp. 500–1Google Scholar; cf. Cardwell, , Documentary Annals, ii. 294–5Google Scholar; Bodl., MS. Tanner 280, fo. 189r.

^{page 117 note 6} 13 Car. II, St. 1, c. 12; on the position of the courts after the passing of 17 Car. I, c. 11, Shaw, W. A., History of the English Church during the Civil Wars and under the Commonwealth (1900), i. 230Google Scholar.

^{page 117 note 8} Lambeth, Court of Arches, A.2; Bodl., MS. Oxf. Archd. papers— Berks, c. 81. I am indebted to Miss D. Slatter for help with the Lambeth records.

^{page 117 note 7} Conveniently listed in Returns of all Courts which exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction. , H.C. (1828). XX, 229Google Scholar.

^{page 118 note 1} Exeter, Cath. Libr., Bp's MSS. 765^A, 815 (Off. Prin.); 765 (Vic. Gen.); for an explanation of the system, Rob. Libr., P.R. Bundle 237. Gibson, E., Codex Juris Ecclesiastici Anglicani, 2nd edn. (1761), ii. 989–90Google Scholar, comments on the proper work of the two officials. At Salisbury, Lincoln and Oxford only one consistory court existed in the seventeenth century.

^{page 118 note 2} Well illustrated in Exeter, Cath. Libr., Bp's MSS. 765, 765^A, 815.

^{page 118 note 3} Bodl., MS. Oxf. Archd. papers–Berks c. 81, fos. 5V., 70r., etc.

^{page 118 note 4} Exeter, Cath. Libr., Bp's MS. 765 passim.

^{page 118 note 5} E.g. Salisbury, Dioc. Regy., Ep. Lib. Act., Box 17, 1662–9 and 1671–80 (12 July 1664; 2 May 1665); Exeter, Cath. Libr., Presentments: Swimbridge, Moretonhampstead parishes.

^{page 118 note 6} Salisbury, Dioc. Regy., Citations, Bundle 1682–4, Quorum Nomina Citations, Malmesbury deanery. For the Gore family, Aubrey, J. and Jackson, J. E., Wiltshire: The Topographical Collections of John Aubrey (Devizes, 1862), p. 47Google Scholar.

^{page 118 note 7} Salisbury, Dioc. Regy., Ep. Presentments in Visitations, 1668 (Sutton Mandeville: Chalke–Amesbury deaneries); cf. Price, F. D., ‘The Abuses of Excommunication and the Decline of Ecclesiastical Discipline under Queen Elizabeth’, Eng. Hist. Rev., lvii (1942), 111–12CrossRef Google Scholar.

^{page 118 note 8} Salisbury, Dioc. Regy., ‘Proceedings of Bp. Ward against Mr. Batt, 1676–7’ cf. Bosher, , Restoration Settlement, p. 256 and nGoogle Scholar.

^{page 119 note 1} Salisbury, Dioc. Regy., Ep. Lib. Act., Box 18, 1670–4, fos. 152r., 152V., 1561., 160v.; D.N.B.

^{page 119 note 2} Bodl., B. 7. 9. Line, no. 16, p. 7.

^{page 119 note 3} E.g. Grey, A., Debates of the House of Commons, 1667‐94 (1763), i. 110–11Google Scholar; ii. 72; v. 59–60.

^{page 119 note 4} E.g. Exeter, Cath. Libr., C.C. Bundle 164^B; cf. Bodl., MS. Tanner 315, fo. 85v.; Grey, , op. cit., v. 59–60Google Scholar.

^{page 119 note 5} Supplement to Burnet's History, ed. Foxcroft, , p. 331Google Scholar.

^{page 119 note 6} Bosher, , Restoration Settlement, p. 231Google Scholar; Bodl., MSS. Tanner 315, fos. 98 ff., 102 ff., 107 ff.; 280, fos. 189 ff. The discussions of 1664 seem to have concerned the courts only (MS. Tanner 315, fo. 66); those of 1668 were more comprehensive. The latter sprang from a fear that parliament would reform the ecclesiastical administration if it did not reform itself (Bodl., Add. MS. C. 308, fo. 114r.; cf. MS. Tanner 315, fos. 88r., 92r.; Grey, , op. cit., i. 84, 110–11)Google Scholar.

^{page 120 note 1} Bodl., MS. Tanner 315, fos. 98–9. Cf. the draft bill by Sir Leoline Jenkins, MS. Tanner 315, fos. 109–10; versions also exist at Lambeth (MS. 929, nos. 107, 119) and at Salisbury, Dioc. Regy., Box Ep. Misc.

^{page 120 note 2} Bodl., MSS. Tanner 315, fos. 80 ff., 98 ff., 88 ff.; 280, fos. 189 ff.

^{page 120 note 3} Bodl., MSS. Tanner 315, fos. 109–10; 447, fos. 20, 125 ff., 175 ff.

^{page 120 note 4} One of the schemes (probably of 1668) suggested compensation for officials of the courts abolished. Bodl., MS. Tanner 315, fo. 84r.

^{page 120 note 5} Ibid., fo. 88v.

^{page 120 note 6} Well seen from a comparison of seventeenth and eighteenth century court books, e.g. Salisbury, Dioc. Regy., Ep. Lib. Act., Boxes 6^B–25.

^{page 120 note 7} E.g. Exeter, Dioc. Regy., Bp's MS. 57, passim;Salisbury, Dioc. Regy., Ep. Lib. Act., Box 17, 1662–9 and 1671–80 (4 Sept. 1668, 8 June 1669, 8 Oct. 1678).

^{page 121 note 1} Bodl., MSS. Oxf. Archd. papers–dash;Berks c. 101, fo. 6r.; c. 103, fo. 214r; c. 107, fo. 4r. A visitation of some kind seems to have taken place in Exeter diocese, 1661–2, Cath. Libr., Presentments: Buckerell and Paignton parishes.

^{page 121 note 2} The archdeacon of Lincoln, for example, seems first to have visited in Nov. 1662 (Lincoln, Vij/22).

^{page 121 note 3} Well illustrated by Exeter, Dioc. Regy., Bp's MS. 218; Bodl., MSS. Oxf. Archd. papers–dash;Berks c. 118, fo. 343r.; cf. c. 108, fo. 4r.; Lincoln, LC/5.

^{page 121 note 4} E.g. in Salisbury diocese, archidiaconal visitations were annual; in Oxford diocese, two were held yearly, one by the archdeacon and one by his official or the bishop's chancellor (Bodl., MSS. Oxf. Archd. papers–dash; Berks c. 100 and series; MS. Oxf. Archd. papers–dash;Oxon c. 12, 13; cf. Barratt, D. M., Oxford Diocesan Records (Handlist, Bodleian Library))Google Scholar.

^{page 121 note 5} E.g. at Salisbury the bishop visited his peculiars, e.g. St. Peter's and St. Mary's, Marlborough, yearly, and also in his triennial visitations (Salisbury, Dioc. Regy., Ep. Pres. in Vis., Marlborough deanery).

^{page 121 note 6} Exeter, Rob. Libr., P.R. Bundle 169, 169^A; Dioc. Regy., Bp's MSS. 1642, 1692.

^{page 121 note 7} It seems probable that a report on churches in Marlborough deanery of 1672 is the work of the rural dean, Thomas Clerke, in whose hand it seems to be (Salisbury, Dioc. Regy., Box, Rural Dean's Return and Misc. Papers, 18 c; cf. Subscription Book 1620–71, fos. 128V., 133V.; Ward's, ‘Notitia’, iii. fo. 16)Google Scholar; a presentment of 1662 refers to defects reported to the bishop by the ‘deane ruler’ (Ep. Pres. in Vis., 1662, Winsley: Avebury Potterne deaneries). Dansey, W., Horae Decanicae Rurales (2nd edn. 1844), ii. 475 ff.Google Scholar; cf. 495, suggested that Seth Ward, on translation from Exeter, revived the office, but it certainly existed in Henchman's episcopate (1660–dash;3), cf. P.R.O., S.P. 29/43, fo. i97r.; 29/44, fo. 269r.

^{page 122 note 1} Proposed in the Worcester House Declaration, 1660 (Cardwell, , Documentary Annals, ii. 293–4)Google Scholar.

^{page 122 note 2} Bosher, , Restoration Settlement, p. 231Google Scholar; Cardwell, E., Synodalia (1842) i. 407–8Google Scholar; ii. 623–4, 646 ff. For Wren's, Morley's and Ward's Articles, Bodl., B. 7. 9. Line, nos. 19, 1, 25.

^{page 122 note 3} Salisbury, Dioc. Regy., Ward's, ‘Notitia’, i. fos. 52 ff.Google Scholar; Morley's revised Articles for 1668 and Ward's for 1674, Brit. Mus., 5155. c. 62; 5155. c. 72.

^{page 123 note 1} Bosher, , op. cit., cc. iv, vGoogle Scholar.

^{page 123 note 2} Exeter, Cath. Libr., Presentments; Bp's MSS. 765, 765^A; Salisbury, Dioc. Regy., Ep. Pres. in Vis., 1662; Lincoln, Vij/22; Episcopal Visitation Book for the Archdeaconry of Buckingham, 1662, ed. Brinkworth, E. R. C. (Bucks. Rec. Soc, vii, 1947)Google Scholar.

^{page 123 note 3} Salisbury, Dioc. Regy., Ep. Pres. in Vis., 1662, Avebury–Potterne deaneries, and passim.

^{page 123 note 4} Ibid., Avebury–Potterne; Abingdon–Wallingford deaneries.

^{page 123 note 5} Ibid., Malmesbury deanery, fo. 56r.; Wylye–Wilton deaneries.

^{page 123 note 6} Exeter, Cath. Libr., Bp's MS. 765.

^{page 124 note 1} Cf. presentments for Hankerton (George Nevill, not sequestered) and Kingston Deverill (Thomas Aylesbury, inst. Jan. 1661) with that for Clyffe Pypard (Henry Blake, ejected 1662). Salisbury, Dioc. Regy., Ep. Pres. in Vis., 1662, Malmesbury deanery, fo. 58r.; Wylye-Wilton and Avebury Potterne deaneries; Reg. 1644–74; Matthews, , Calamy Revised, pp. 178Google Scholar, 60. Cf. similar observations for Ely diocese, Palmer, W. M., Episcopal Visitation Returns for Cambridgeshire (1930), p. 1Google Scholar.

^{page 124 note 2} 14 Car. II, c. 4.

^{page 124 note 3} Srawley, J. H., Michael Honeywood, Dean of Lincoln (1660–81), (Lincoln Minster Pamphlets, No. 5. 1950), p. 7Google Scholar; Exeter, Dioc. Regy., Bp's MS. 151; Neal, D., History of the Puritans (rev. edn. 1837), iii. 113–14Google Scholar.

^{page 124 note 4} Evidence drawn from Exeter, Dioc. Regy., Bp's MSS. 151, 24, 218, 906–7, and Cath. Libr., D. & C. MS. 3601; Matthews, op. cit.

^{page 124 note 5} Salisbury, Dioc. Regy., Ep. Pres. in Vis., 1662, Avebury-Potterne, Chalke-Amesbury deaneries; Matthews, , Walker Revised, p. 381Google Scholar, and Calamy Revised, p. 452.

^{page 124 note 6} Canon 113; cf. Wren's explicit directions for Ely diocese, Bodl., B. 7. 9. Line, no. 19, p. 25.

^{page 125 note 1} E.g. presentments and apparitors' reports for Cricklade, Marlborough and Malmesbury deaneries, Salisbury, Dioc. Regy., Ep. Pres. in Vis., 1683. Canon 138 forbade such informing, but it was still common: cf. Exeter, Cath. Libr., Bp's MS. 770 (5 Feb. 1666); Episcopal Visitation Book for the Archdeaconry of Buckingham, 1662, ed. Brinkworth, , pp. viiiGoogle Scholar, ix; Bodl., MS. Tanner 315, fo. 67r.

^{page 125 note 2} Cf. for Marlborough deanery, the probable rural dean's report of 1672 with the presentments for 1671, e.g. for Wootton Rivers. Salisbury, Dioc. Regy., Ep. Pres. in Vis., 1671; Box, Rural Dean's Return, 1672 and Misc. Papers, 18c. In Ely diocese in the 1660's the archdeacon or his official inspected churches personally (Palmer, , Episcopal Visitation Returns for Cambridgeshire, pp. 125–6)Google Scholar.

^{page 125 note 3} Dansey, , Horae Decanicae Rurales, ii. 347, 352–3, 431–2, 167 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 125 note 4} Well illustrated by Bodl., MSS. Oxf. Archd. papers–Berks c. 100 and series; cf. for Lincoln, , Kathleen, Major ‘Lincoln Diocesan Records’, Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc, 4th Ser., xxii (1940), 63Google Scholar.

^{page 125 note 5} Speculum Dioeceseos Lincolniensis… 1705–23, Part I, ed. Cole, R. E. G. (Lincoln Rec. Soc, iv, 1913)Google Scholar; Salisbury, Dioc. Regy., Ep. Lib. Vis. 1783.

^{page 125 note 6} Visitation Articles and Injunctions of the Period of the Reformation, ed. Frere, W. H. (Alcuin Club Collections, xiv–xvi, 1910), iii, 81–6Google Scholar; Kennedy, W. P. M., Elizabethan Episcopal Administration {loc. cit., xxv–xxvii, 1924), iii. 153 ff., 247 ff., 250, 257Google Scholar; Cardwell, , Documentary Annals, ii. 167 ffGoogle Scholar. TRANS. 5TH S.–VOL 5–dash;1

^{page 126 note 1} Lambeth, Juxon Reg., fos. 121r., 118r. (Canterbury and Chichester only recorded); Documents relating to the history of the Cathedral Church of Winchester in the seventeenth century, ed. Stephens, W. R. W. and Madge, F. T. (Hants Rec. Soc, xiv, 1897), pp. 106 ff.Google Scholar; inhibition (date rubbed), Bodl., MS. Oxf. Archd. papers–Berks c. 81, fo. 275r, cf. fos. 83–5V.; Salisbury, Dioc. Regy., Subdean, vol. 72 (9 June 1663); Dean, vol. 134 (26 March, 9 Apr., 13 and 27 May 1663).

^{page 126 note 2} Lambeth, Sancroft Reg., ii. fos. 277 ff., 297 ff.; Lincoln, Red Book, fos. 32m ff.; Bodl., MS. Tanner 143, fos. i59r., 207 ff. and passim. For events at Salisbury, Jones, W. H., Salisbury (1880), pp. 246 ff.Google Scholar; at Lincoln, Bodl., MS. Tanner 30, fo. 29r.

^{page 126 note 3} Notes in Visitation Articles, e.g. Bodl., B. 7. 9. Line; Mercurius Publicus, 1661–2, No. 37, 11–18 Sept. 1662; Correspondence of John Cosin, ed. Ornsby, G. (Surtees Soc, Hi, lv, 1868, 1870), ii. 31Google Scholar.

^{page 126 note 4} Bosher, , Restoration Settlement, p. 247Google Scholar.

^{page 126 note 5} Bodl., B. 7. 9. Line, no. 9, p. 13; no. 25, p. 10; Salisbury, Dioc. Regy., Ep. Pres. in Vis., 1668, Pewsey (Marlborough-Cricklade deaneries); Landford (Chalke–Amesbury deaneries); for a contrary opinion, Bodl., MS. Tanner 28, fo. 41r.

^{page 127 note 1} Exeter, Rob. Libr., P.R. Bundle 345.

^{page 127 note 2} Wilkins, , Concilia, iv. 593Google Scholar.

^{page 127 note 3} E.g. Salisbury, Dioc. Regy., Ep. Pres. in Vis., 1683, Upton Lovell; 1674, Codford St. Mary (Wylye-Wilton deaneries); Exeter, Rob. Libr., P.R. Bundle 345.

^{page 127 note 4} Bodl., MS. Tanner 280, fo. 189r.

^{page 127 note 5} Shaw, , History of the English Church, ii. 202 ff.Google Scholar; 249 ff.

^{page 127 note 6} 16 Car. II, c. 10; 22 & 23 Car. II, c. 12 (private acts).

^{page 127 note 7} In accordance with 17 Car. II, c. 3.

^{page 128 note 1} E.g. Lincoln, D. & C. D/vij/i, no. 33; Exeter, Cath. Libr., D. & C. MSS. 3692–3, 2158–9. Legislation to improve appropriated livings was discussed in the Commons in 1660, but no act was passed (Kennett, White, The Case of Impropriations and of the Augmentation of Vicarages (1704), pp. 249 ff.)Google Scholar.

^{page 128 note 2} Cardwell, , Documentary Annals, ii. 272–5Google Scholar; cf. 17 Car. II, c. 3 and Cal. S.P. Dom., 1661–2, p. 18.

^{page 128 note 3} Salisbury, Dioc.Regy., Ward's ‘Notitia’, iii, fos. 1–40; ii, fos. 19–20; iii, fos. 60–5, to some degree supplemented by ‘Wastefelde's Collections’. Ward gives another valuation with the letter D, almost certainly for Duppa, prefixed, but as this is incomplete and may date from before the Civil War, the more comprehensive survey has been used.

^{page 128 note 4} E.g. Lyneham, Salisbury, Dioc. Regy., Ep. Pres. in Vis., 1674 (Avebury Potterne deaneries).

^{page 128 note 6} Burnet, , History, i. 329–30Google Scholar; cf. Kennett, , op. cit., pp. 249–51Google Scholar.

^{page 128 note 8} Burnet, , op. cit., p. 329Google Scholar.

^{page 129 note 1} Salisbury, Dioc. Regy., Ward's ‘Notitia’, ii. fo. 4r.; Exeter, Cath. Libr., D. & C. MS. 3713.

^{page 129 note 2} Cf. complaints about the poverty of endowments at Exeter, Cath. Libr., 3499, fo. 243r.; Bodl., Add. MS. C. 305, fo. 194V.

^{page 129 note 3} Cf. Clarendon's, comments, Continuation of the Life of Edward Earl of Clarendon (1843), pp. 1047–8Google Scholar; Exeter, Cath. Libr., D. & C. MS. 3499, fo. 243r. summarizes expenses at Exeter met by the Chapter. For similar statements for other dioceses, Bodl., MS. Tanner 147, fos. 11r., 79r., 229r.

^{page 129 note 4} E.g. John Townson, vicar of Bremhill (value c. £300) and Nathaniel Massey, vicar of Stratton St. Margaret (value £30–40); Salisbury, Dioc. Regy., Ep. Lib. Dep., Box 12, 1670–80; Citations, Bundle 1682–4, 20 Nov. 1682; Ward's, ‘Notitia’, iii, fos. 24, 17Google Scholar.

^{page 129 note 6} As in the eighteenth century (Sykes, , Church and State, pp. 147 ff.)Google Scholar.

^{page 130 note 1} Salisbury, Dioc. Regy., Ward's, ‘Notitia’, iii, fos. 34, 38, 23, 21Google Scholar.

^{page 130 note 2} Salisbury, Dioc. Regy., Ep. Pres. in Vis., 1662, 1671, 1674, 1683 (Abingdon-Wallingford deaneries); Bodl., MS. Oxf. Archd. papers– Berks c. 110, fos. 231 ff.; D.N.B.

^{page 130 note 3} Bodl., MS. Tanner 39, fo. 105V.; Salisbury, Dioc. Regy., Ep. Pres. in Vis., 1671, Abingdon–Wallingford deaneries.

^{page 130 note 4} Bosher, , Restoration Settlement, p. 231Google Scholar.

^{page 130 note 5} L.J. xi. 567, 612, 616; xiii. 180–1, 187; Bodl., MSS. Tanner 447, fos. 127–8; 315, fo. 100r.; 280, fos. 190–1.

^{page 131 note 1} Bosher, , op. cit., pp. 213–15Google Scholar.

^{page 130 note 2} Ibid., p. 182.

^{page 130 note 3} Ibid., pp. 159, 184 and passim; Sheldon and Morley were consecrated in Oct. 1660, Earle in 1662.

^{page 130 note 4} Trevor-Roper, H. R., ‘The Restoration of the Church, 1660’, History Today, ii (1952), 542Google Scholar; Bosher, , op. cit., pp. 182–3Google Scholar.

Article contents

The Re-Establishment of the Church of England, 1660–1663

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests