The general expectation of a parish clergyman seems to have been that he should be readily available to his parishioners, conscientious and punctual in the conduct of worship and a good preacher. He should also regularly catechise and teach the young that they too might be able, in due course, to benefit from sermons. For the rest he was expected to visit the sick and support them in their need, with absolution and holy communion, and to know everybody so that he might congratulate or admonish as cause demanded.
Residence in a parish was important in the eyes of devout lay people. It was most important that a clergyman should be present and involved in the life of a town or village, that his life should be an example and that he should encourage the fainthearted and admonish the fallen. It was assumed that all inhabitants were not only Christians but Anglicans. His task was not to convert but to foster growth in the paths of righteousness, but not too officiously. The eighteenth century is often held up as notorious for the nonresidence of the clergy. However, a closer examination of where clergy actually lived suggests that though, for example, in the Archdeaconry of Stow in Lincolnshire, pluralism was almost universal, there was an ingenious grouping of livings and interrelationship of benefices and curacies which was obviously designed to try to give parishes as much service as possible.
In the diocese of London, including the vast rural hinterlands of Essex and Hertfordshire, less than 20 per cent of the parishes did not have a resident clergyman, whether incumbent or curate, and in the City less than 6 per cent of parishes had non-resident clergy. The number of incumbents who, on investigation, prove to be more or less permanent absentees turns out to be comparatively small. In 1778 only thirty-nine Lancashire incumbents were non-resident, and all parishes had a resident clergyman. Even about 90 per cent of chapelries had a resident clergyman.
Laity played a major part in the lives of clergy as patrons. In 1742, 53.4 per cent of advowsons were in the hands of private individuals (12 per cent of whom were peers), and in 0.8 per cent parishioners or town corporations presented the incumbent. In other cases, as at King's Lynn, because the Corporation paid the incumbent's salary, they nominated the incumbent to the Dean and Chapter of Norwich.
Patronage was the customary system for making appointments in eighteenth-century England. The army, the navy and the civil service were all staffed by people who had secured their positions by means of patronage. Patronage, vested in office holders at Court, in individual aristocrats or members of the gentry and corporate bodies such as colleges, chapters and corporations, was seen as a trust. It was the duty of patrons to favour deserving men. If favour was bestowed on worthy and deserving objects, the reputation of the patron was enhanced. Patrons usually informed themselves of the ability and reputation of a client. Merit was usually a prerequisite for preferment: patrons did not wish to occur obloquy and notoriety for appointing incompetents.
This was no less true of the Church than other areas in which patronage was exercised. Most patrons were practising Anglicans, aware that they would have to live as neighbours with the incumbents they appointed, and would have to receive their ministrations week by week. Those attempting to develop 'influence' knew that unless they appointed competent men, their influence would not stretch far. Scandalous and outrageous use of patronage was relatively uncommon. The majority of clergy seldom secured more than two livings, and they were seldom immediately promoted to senior posts on ordination. Multiple nominations to benefices were rare.
People's Attitudes towards the Christian Faith in Eighteenth Century
