#Richard Sampson# (1536-1543) took part in the Reformation movement. Although he had defended the principle that the king was to be considered "high governor under G.o.d, and Supreme head of the Church of England," his principles appear to have been easily affected by the political weather that prevailed. His att.i.tude in favour of every principle involved in the acceptance of the papacy appears in the support he gave to doctrines which had been rejected by the party of reform. He no doubt feared the results that might follow upon another attempt to adapt the Church's const.i.tution to changed conditions.

In the time of #George Daye# (1543-1552) the pendulum moved again across the face of the political and ecclesiastical clock. He was a man whose convictions led him to support those same six articles which had been upheld by Bishop Sampson; and he attempted to prevent the introduction of the first prayer-book of Edward VI. in 1549, as well as the destruction of the earlier service-books in the following year.

He was a man to be respected, for in the face of general opposition he proved that his convictions on important affairs were not ready to change at the sudden bidding of a new authority which he was unable to recognise. As he was not to be persuaded that his position was wrong, he was removed from the see towards the end of the year 1551. But we meet him again presently, for Bishop #John Scory# (1552-1554), who took his place, retired soon after Mary's accession. Bishop Daye came back to favour, preached at the coronation, reoccupied the see, and was now "a mighty busy man." [37] He caused some recent orders to be reversed by reviving the use of the earlier forms of liturgy, restoring the older ceremonial, and again setting up those altars in the churches which should never have been broken down. In his own words Daye "styeked" not at things trivial; but he would not a.s.sent to the abolition of essentials, however much they had been misused or become offensive in the eyes of untutored civil dignitaries and their party followers. Daye on his restoration had attempted to remove reformers and their opinions from the diocese by the aid of f.a.ggots and flames. But #John Christopherson# (1557-1559) was more energetic in upholding his authority and ideas by this same means; for Mary, though she would revive the papal supremacy, yet retained in her own hands the ecclesiastical position which the Throne in England had already a.s.sumed.

[37] Strype, quoted by Dean Stephens, p. 190.

At the close of Mary's reign Bishop Christopherson died, and in his place Elizabeth put #William Barlow# (1559-1568), who had been removed from the see of Bath and Wells by her predecessor. He made some attempt to remove a variety of irregularities which had been introduced since the death of Sherburne, for the services of the Church had become much disordered in consequence of the many changes of att.i.tude which had been favoured by the rulers, both civil and ecclesiastical, during nearly thirty years. Barlow's endeavour to bring this chaos to a new order was in accord with the methods of those who sought reform. He tried to carry out the injunction of Parker, the Primate, whose aim was to "reduce all to a G.o.dly uniformitie." But any desire for unity in diversity was not likely to be satisfied unless it was sought for with at least some unanimity of hope and aim. After his death the see remained vacant for two years.

#Richard Curteys# (1570-1583) found the revenues of his see so reduced that he was unable properly to fulfil the ordinary obligations of his position. He did not spare himself in his endeavour to do the duties he had undertaken. With the a.s.sistance of others he methodically instructed the diocese under his charge, an well was this done that a contemporary said "the people with ardent zeale, wonderful rejoicinge, and in great number, take farre and long journeys to be partakers of his good and G.o.dly lessons." [38]This excellent man, however, owing to the political spoliation of the church, died impoverished in 1583.

[38] Kennett's Notes: see Stephens' "Diocesan History of Chichester,"

p. 197.

From 1583 till 1585 no bishop was appointed, but in the latter year #Thomas Bickley# (1585-1596) was selected.

#Antony Watson# (1596-1605) was Bishop of Chichester when James became king. He was occupied much in furthering Whitgift's endeavour to improve the condition of the Church in England by urging conformity to the newly ordered methods of ecclesiastical government and procedure.

#Launcelot Andrews# (1605-1609) then ruled the diocese until he was transferred to Ely.

He was followed by #Samuel Harsnett# (1609-1619), who was an opponent of the Calvinistic att.i.tude of thought. The records of his visitations ask some pertinent questions, which show how the Cathedral Church itself was being served. He inquires, "Have not many of the vicars and lay vicars been absent for months together? Is the choir sufficiently furnished, and are the boys properly instructed? What has become of the copes and vestments? Who is responsible for the custody of them and of the books? Are there not ale-houses in the close? Why are all these things not amended since the last visitation?" This was the state of affairs in the cathedral church of the diocese at the beginning of the seventeenth century; and during the two hundred years that followed there is but little improvement to remark. Certainly in #George Carleton#'s (1619-1628) and in #Richard Montagu#'s day (1628-1638) there was not much change, for the latter asks in every parish "whether communicants 'meekly kneel,' or whether they stand or sit at the time of reception: Whether the Holy Table is profaned at any time by persons sitting upon it, casting hats or cloaks upon it, writing or casting up accounts or any other indecent usuage." [39] And in consequence the archbishop desired to restore some sense of order and decency to the minds of both the clergy and laity by replacing the altars in their proper positions again. He asks, therefore, Bishop #Brian Duppa# (1638-1641), in the questions put during the first visitation of parish churches, "Is your communion-table, or altar, strong, fair and decent? Is it set according to the practice of the ancient Church,--upon an ascent at the east end of the chancel, with the ends of it north and south? Is it compa.s.sed in with a handsome rail to keep it from profanation according to an order made in the metropolical visitation?" [40]

[39] Stephens' "Diocesan History," p. 216.

[40] Quoted by Stephens, "Diocesan History," p. 216.

During the episcopate of #Henry King# (1642-1670) the diocese was a theatre of rebellion and civil war. Chichester was taken on December 29th, 1642, by Waller and the Parliamentary soldiers after a siege of eight days. Bishop King repaired, after the Restoration, the wrecked cathedral and the episcopal palace, but this appears to be all that is known of him.

#Peter Gunning# (1670-1675) was the first Bishop of Chichester appointed after the Restoration. He had suffered for the tenacity with which he clung to his principles during the period of the Rebellion.

Having been ejected from a fellowship at Cambridge, he came to London, and there, with no little audacity, he ministered and taught as a loyalist and Churchman.

But #Ralph Brideoake# (1675-1678) watched the political and ecclesiastical weatherc.o.c.ks, and feathered his nest. He had been "Chaplain to Speaker Lenthall, who gave him the rich living of Witney, near Oxford, where we are told he 'preached twice every Lord's Day, and in the evening catechised the youth in his own house; outvying in labour and vigilancy any of the G.o.dly brethren in those parts.' In 1659 he was made one of the 'triers,' yet immediately after the Restoration he was rapidly promoted to a canonry at Windsor, to the Deanery of Salisbury, and finally to the Bishopric of Chichester."[41]

Though Bishop Henry King had endeavoured to restore the cathedral and the buildings of the precincts, these still were in a state of extreme dilapidation, for Bishop Brideoake's record of his visitation shows that the towers, windows, and cloisters had not yet been repaired.

[41] Stephens' "Diocesan History," p. 233.

#Guy Carleton# (1678-1685) was a Royalist bishop of a most consistent type. On two occasions he had been turned out of a cure by the Parliamentary "triers" for his opinions; but in his eighty-second year he came from the see of Bristol to Chichester.

Another Royalist, who as a soldier had supported the cause of Charles I., occupied the see after Carleton. This was #John Lake# (1685-1689). He was one of those seven bishops who protested against James's Declaration of Indulgence.

#Simon Patrick# (1689), #Robert Grove# (1691), #John Williams# (1696), #Thomas Manningham# (1709), #Thomas Bowers# (1722), and #Edward Waddington# (1724) served in the episcopate successively.

#Francis Hare# (1731-1740) then filled the vacancy. He wasted some of his time in useless controversy, and, as the Duke of Marlborough's chaplain, made his office cheap, though perhaps popular, by occasionally dilating in his sermons upon the genius and military skill of his patron. He was a man of some capacity, who advised conformity to the meagre and starved ideals of the then accepted orthodoxy. Apparently he deemed this course a safe one, where there could, it appears, be little other guidance for those who still had any faith, except in the conventionalities of what had become ecclesiastical custom. He saw that the interpretation which individual opinion in its practical rejection of Christian ordinances would read into faith was likely to be no more than a new expression of early and mediaeval heresies.

#Mathias Mawson# (1740-1754) was bishop after Hare; and then Sir #William Ashburnham# (1754-1799) came to the diocese and occupied the see for forty-five years, "the longest episcopate since the foundation of the see." [42]

[42] Stephens, p, 245.

Before the close of the eighteenth century #John Buckner# (1799-1824) succeeded Ashburnham.

In 1824 #Robert James Carr#, and in 1831 #Edward Maltby#, were appointed to the see.

[Ill.u.s.tration: S. CLEMENT'S CHAPEL, AND TOMB OF BISHOP DURNFORD (SEE p. 83). _S.B. Bolas & Co., photo_.]

#William Otter# succeeded (1836-1840). During his episcopate the Diocesan a.s.sociation was founded in 1838 to help the clergy and laity of the diocese to provide themselves with better schools, to increase the means of instruction and ministration, to restore or enlarge their churches and schools, and to provide new ones when they had the opportunity afforded by sufficient means. Bishop Otter and Dean Chandler succeeded in establishing a theological college in the city.

#Philip N. Shuttleworth# (1840-1842), #Ashurst Turner Gilbert# (1842-1870), and #Richard Durnford# (1870-1895) were succeeded by #Ernest Roland Wilberforce#, the present bishop, who was translated to the see from Newcastle in 1895.

DEANS or CHICHESTER.

Odo, 1115.

Richard, 1115.

Matthew, 1125.

Richard, 1144.

John de Greneford, 1150.

Jordan de Meleburn, 1176.

Seffride, 1178.

Matthew de Chichester, 1180.

Nicholas de Aquila, 1190.

Seffride, 1197.

Simon de Perigord, 1220.

Walter, 1230.

Thomas de Lichfield, 1232.

Geoffrey, 1250.

Walter de Glocestrin, 1256.

William de Brakelsham, 1276.

Thomas de Berghstede, 1296.

William de Grenefeld, 1302.

John de St. Leophardo, 1307.

Henry de Garland, 1332.

Walter de Segrave, 1342.

William de Lenne, 1356.

Roger de Freton, 1369.

Richard le Scrope, 1383.

William de Lullyngton, 1389-1390.

John de Maydenhith, 1400.

John Haselee, 1407.

Henry Lovel, 1410.

Richard Talbot, 1415.

William Milton, 1420.

John Patten, or Waynflete, 1425.

John Crutchere, 1429.

John Waynfleet, 1478.

John Gloos, 1481.

John Prychard, 1501.

Geoffrey Symson, 1504.

John Young (Bishop), S.T.P. 1508.

William Fleshmonger, 1526.

Richard Camden, 1541.

Giles Eyre, S.T.D, 1549.