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]

As was mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, the secular judges
were given statutory authority to take cognizance of breaches of the
order prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer, of the offence of not
attending church, and other delinquencies against the legal settlement
of religion. Hence in these matters they exercised what might be
called a sort of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in aid of the ordinary