| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: Parish life in mediæval England
Author: Gasquet, Francis Aidan
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Parish life in mediæval England" ***
THE ANTIQUARY’S BOOKS
GENERAL EDITOR: J. CHARLES COX, LL.D., F.S.A.
PARISH LIFE IN
MEDIÆVAL ENGLAND
[Illustration: PASSIONTIDE:
OFFICE OF THE PENITENTIARY, THE LENTEN VEIL, ETC.]
PARISH LIFE IN
MEDIÆVAL ENGLAND
BY
ABBOT GASQUET, D.D.
AUTHOR OF
“ENGLISH MONASTIC LIFE”
WITH NUMEROUS ILLUSTRATIONS
SECOND EDITION
METHUEN & CO.
36 ESSEX STREET W.C.
LONDON
_First Published_ _October 1906_
_Second Edition_ _1907_
CONTENTS
PAGE
LIST OF MANUSCRIPT AND PRINTED AUTHORITIES xi
CHAPTER I
THE PARISH 1
CHAPTER II
THE PARISH CHURCH 21
CHAPTER III
THE PARISH CHURCH (_continued_) 44
CHAPTER IV
THE PARISH CLERGY 71
CHAPTER V
THE PARISH OFFICIALS 102
CHAPTER VI
PAROCHIAL FINANCE 124
CHAPTER VII
THE PARISH CHURCH SERVICES 140
CHAPTER VIII
CHURCH FESTIVALS 164
CHAPTER IX
THE SACRAMENTS 187
CHAPTER X
THE PARISH PULPIT 211
CHAPTER XI
PARISH AMUSEMENTS 233
CHAPTER XII
GUILDS AND FRATERNITIES 253
INDEX 275
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT
PAGE
Thurible, found near Pershore 33
Twelfth Century.
Pax 34
_Arch. Journal_, ii. 149.
Bracket with Suspended Dove and Cover 37
Viollet le Duc, _Dictionnaire du Mobilier_, i. 249.
Sacramental Dove 38
_Ibid._, 50.
St. Martin’s Mass, showing Disposition of Altar
Furniture--Fourteenth Century 47
Didron, _Annales Archæologique_, iii. 95.
Pyx, and Canopy, open 48
Pyx Canopy, closed 49
Shaft Piscina, Treborough 52
Double Piscina, Cowlinge, Suffolk 52
Outside Entrance to Rood-Loft, St. John’s, Winchester 55
_Journal of Arch. Assoc._, ix. 1.
Corona of Lights, St. Martin de Troyes--Fifteenth Century 61
Viollet le Duc, _Dictionnaire du Mobilier_.
Backless Benches, Cawston, Norfolk 63
Font, St. Michael’s, Sutton Bonnington, Notts 64
Holy Water Stoup, Wootton Courtney, Somerset 65
Sacrament of Ordination 79
From _The Art of Good Lyvinge_.
Rectory, West Dean, Sussex 89
Turner’s _Domestic Architecture_, i. 168.
Holy Water Clerk 113
B. Museum, Royal MSS., 10 E. 4.
Blessing of Food by Holy Water Clerk 114
B. Museum, Royal MSS., 10 E. 4.
Alms Box, Blythburgh, Suffolk 130
Organ--Twelfth Century 144
Didron, _Annales Archæologique_, iv. 31.
Low Side Window, Barnard Castle, Durham 147
Holy Water Vat and Sprinkler 155
_Dictionnaire du Mobilier_, ii. 35.
The Sacrament of Penance 169
From _The Art of Good Lyvinge_.
Easter Sepulchre, Arnold, Notts 178
Sacrament of Baptism 191
From _The Art of Good Lyvinge_.
Sacrament of Confirmation 195
_Ibid._
Sacrament of Extreme Unction 202
_Ibid._
Hearse and Pall--Fifteenth Century. Cantors at Lectern 205
“Vita et pass. S. Dyonisii Areop.,” _Biblio. Nat._
_Dictionnaire du Mobilier_, ii. 127.
Sacrament of Matrimony 208
From _The Art of Good Lyvinge_.
Pulpit, 1475, St. Paul’s, Truro 212
Stone Pulpit Bracket, Walpole St. Andrew, Norfolk 215
Church House, Lincoln 234
Turner’s _Domestic Architecture_, i. 168.
LIST OF PLATES
Passiontide _Frontispiece_
B. Museum, Add. MS., 25698, f. 9.
Rood-Screen and Pulpit, Haberton Church _To face page_ 44
From a Photograph by J. Valentine & Sons, Ltd.
Screen, Withycombe, Somerset ” 56
Acolythes and Baptism ” 76
B. Museum, Royal MSS., 6 E. vi., ff. 40, 171.
Houseling Cloth for Holy Communion ” 106
_Ibid._, 2 B. vii., f. 260b.
Archidiaconal Visitation and Marriage ” 216
_Ibid._, 6 E. vi., ff. 133, 375.
Confirmation and Youths receiving Holy Communion ” 222
_Ibid._, 6 E. ff. 472, 337d.
LIST OF MANUSCRIPT AND PRINTED AUTHORITIES
As in _English Monastic Life_, the volume I have already contributed
to this series of “The Antiquary’s Books,” I have, in this book, been
advised by the Editor to avoid multitudinous footnotes and references.
I here give a list of works, in print and manuscript, out of which I
have endeavoured to reconstruct the picture of _Parish Life in Mediæval
England_, which I have tried to sketch in the following pages.
CHANTRIES
P. R. O. Exchequer, Augmentation Office, _Chantry Certificates_.
P. R. O. Exchequer, _Ministers’ Accounts_, 2-3, Edward VI.
_Chantries within the County of Lancaster_ (Chetham Soc.).
_Somerset, Survey and Rental of Chantries._ ed. E. Green (Somerset
Record Soc.). 1888.
_Yorkshire, Certificates as to Chantries_, etc. (Surtees Soc.). 2 vols.
CHURCHWARDENS’ ACCOUNTS
_Ashburton_ (1479-1580). ed. J. H. Butcher.
_Arlington, Sussex_ (1456-1479). Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 33,192.
_Bath, St. Michael’s without the North Gate._ ed. C. B. Pearson
(_Somerset Archæol., etc., Soc. Proceedings_, vol. xxiii. p. 6). Cf.
also Somerset Record Soc. 1890.
_Bedwardine, St. Michael’s (Worcester)_, 1539-1603. ed. J. Amphlett.
_Bishop Stortford St. Michael’s._ ed. J. L. Glasscock. 1882.
_Blythburgh, Suffolk._ ed. J. Gardner (1754), _Hist. of Dunwich,
Blythburgh, and Southwold_, 147-159.
_Bodmin, Receipts and Expenses in the Building of._ ed. J. J.
Wilkinson (Camden Soc., Misc., vii. 1874).
_Bramley, Surrey_ (transcript kindly lent by C. R. Peers, Esq.).
_Bristol, St. Ewen’s._ Sir J. Maclean (in Transactions of Bristol and
Glouc. Archæol. Assoc., xv. 1890-1891).
_Cambridge, St. Mary the Great_ (1504-1635). ed. J. E. Foster
(Cambridge Antiq. Soc.). 1905.
_Canterbury, St. Dunstan’s_ (1484-1580). ed. Cowper. 1885. (Reprinted
from Archæologia Cantiana, xvi., xvii.)
_Cowfold_ (1471-1485). Rev. W. B. Otter, in Sussex Archæol. Coll. ii.,
pp. 316-325.
_Cratfield parish_ (1490-1642). ed. Rev. W. Holland.
_Croscombe, Pilton, Yatton, Tintinhull, Morebath, and St. Michael’s,
Bath._ ed. Bishop Hobhouse (Somerset Record Soc. 1890).
_Derby, All Saints_ (1465-1527). ed. J. C. Cox and W. H. St. John
Hope. 1881.
_Dover, St. Mary’s_ (1536). Brit. Mus. Eg. MS. 1912.
_Exeter, St. Petrock’s_ (1425-1590). R. Dymond (Devon Assoc. for the
Advancement of Science, etc. 1902).
_Hawkhurst._ ed. W. J. Lightfoot (Archæologia Cantiana, vol. v. p. 78).
_Hedon, St. Augustine’s, in E. Riding of Yorks_ (in _Early History of
the Town and Port_. J. R. Boyle), Appendix, ciii. _seqq._
_Hertfordshire._ Inventory of Church Furniture. ed. J. E. Cussans.
_Hythe_ (1412-1413) in Archæol. Cantiana, x. pp. 242-249.
_Leicester, St. Martin’s._ ed. Thomas North. 1884.
_Leverton_, Lincolnshire (in Archæologia, vol. xli. pp. 333 _seqq._).
_Lincolnshire_, in _Church Goods_, ed. Peacock, pp. 202 _seqq._
_London, St. Martin’s, Outwich_ (1570), in Sir J. Nichols’ _Illust. of
Manners, etc._, pp. 270 _seqq._
_London, St. Dionysius, Backchurch_ (in Lond. and Midd. Archæol., iv.
pp. 203 _seqq._).
_London, St. Mary-at-Hill_ (1420-1559). ed. H. Littlehales, 2 parts,
1904-1906 (Early English Text Soc.).
_London, St. Michael’s, Cornhill._ ed. Overall and Waterlow. 1870.
_London, St. Peter Cheap_ (Journal of Archæological Association, vol.
xxiv. pp. 248 _seqq._).
_Ludlow_ (1469-1749). ed. Ll. Jones (in Shropshire Archæol., etc.,
Soc., vols. 1, 2, 4, 5).
_Melton Mowbray._ ed. Thomas North (in Leicestershire Architect. and
Archæol. Soc. Trans. III. 1874).
_Morebath_, Somerset (see Croscombe).
_Norfolk Church Goods_ (in Norfolk Archæol., vii.).
_North Elmham_ (1539-1577). ed. A. G. Legge. 1891.
_Norwich Church Goods_ (in Norfolk Archæol., vi. p. 360).
_Nottinghamshire Church Goods_ (P. R. O. Exch. Q. R. Church Goods,
7/38-7/39).
_Oxford, St. Peter-in-the-East_ (1444). ed. R. S. Mylne (in Soc. of
Antiquaries Proceedings, 2nd Series, X., 25-28).
_Pilton, Somerset_ (see Croscombe).
_Piltington_ and other parishes in diocese of Durham. 1580. (ed.
Surtees Soc. 1888.)
_Reading, St. Giles._ ed. W. L. Nash. 1881.
_Saffron Walden_, Extracts, 1439-85 (in _History of Audley End and
Saffron Walden_, by Richard, Lord Braybrooke).
_Salisbury, St. Edmund’s and St. Thomas’_ (1447-1702), (Wilts Record
Soc.).
_Shere, Surrey._ Manning and Bray’s _Surrey_, i. 529-531.
_Steyning, Surrey_, ed. T. Medland (in Surrey Archæol., viii. 133-140).
_Stratton, Cornwall_, Highcross Wardens (1512-1577). Brit. Mus. Add.
MS. 32,243 (Archæologia, xlvi. pp. 195-236).
_Stutterton, St. Mary’s_ (1461-1536). Bib. Bodl. MS. Rawlinson 786.
_Surrey Church Goods_ (in Surrey Archæol., iv. pp. 1-189).
_Tavistock_, Extracts, 1385-1725 (in Calendar, etc. ed. R. N. Worth.
1887).
_Thame_, Extracts 1443-1638 (in _History, etc._ ed. F. G. Lee, pp.
15-87).
_Tintinhull, Somerset_ (see Croscombe).
_Walberswick_ (1451-1550), in Sir J. Nichols’ _Illust. of Manners,
etc._, pp. 183 _seqq._
_Wells, St. Cuthbert’s_, early accounts (in _Historical Account of St.
Cuthbert’s_). 1875.
_Westminster, St. Margaret’s_ (1460-1461), in Sir J. Nichols’ _Illust.
of Manners, etc._, pp. 1 _seqq._
_Westminster, St. Margaret’s_, Extracts 1478-1492 (in _Caxton
Memorial_, reprinted from the _Builder_, Aug. 7 and 21, 1880).
_Wigtoft_ (1484-1497), in Sir J. Nichols’ _Illust. of Manners, etc._,
pp. 77 _seqq._
_Wing_, Bucks, (in _Archæologia_, xxxvi. pp. 219-241).
_Worcester, St. Helen’s_ (1519-1520). ed. J. Amphlett.
_Yatton, Somerset_ (see Croscombe).
_London, St. Mary Woolnoth_, Deeds relating to. B. Mus. Harl. MS. 877.
CLERICAL LIFE
_Baculus Viatoris_, to give priests material for instruction. Brit.
Mus. MS. Reg. 8, F. vii. (ff. 41-51_d_).
_Cilium Oculi Sacerdotis._ Harl. MS. 4968 (ff. 1-46_d_), and Harl. MS.
211 (ff. 51_d_ _seqq._).
_Cura Clericalis._ Wynkyn de Worde. 1532.
_De Oculo Morali._ Bishop Grosteste. MS. Reg. 7, C. i. Also printed at
Augsburg, 1480, and at Venice, 1496.
_Dieta Salutis._ R. Halcot. B. Mus. Harl. MS. 2250 (ff. 64-68); MS.
Reg. 7, D. xxii.; 5, F. xiv.; 7, 6, I.; Add. MS. 11,437.
_Doctrinal of Sapience._ Caxton. 1489.
_Instructions for Priests._ Printed by De Worde.
_Elucidarium_ of William of Coventry. Harl. MS. 5234 (ff. 88 _seqq._).
_Exornatorium Curatorum._ Printed by Notary, de Worde and Pepwell.
_Exposition of the Commandments._ By John Nydar.
_Flos Florum._ Thomas Hibernicus or Palmeranus. Brit. Mus. Burney MS.
356. Printed at Venice in 1550 and several times afterwards;
sometimes known as the _Flores dictorum_ and _Manipulus Florum_.
_Gallicantus._ By Bishop Alcock, of Ely. Printed by Pynson, 1498.
_Liber Bonitatis._ Harl. MS. 2379 (ff. 15_d_-12_d_).
_Liber Festivalis._ Sixteen printed editions between 1483-1532.
_Manipulus Curatorum._ Six printed editions in Latin from 1500-1509,
and in translations as _Livre de Sapience_ and _The Doctrinal of
Sapience_.
_Manuale Sacerdotis._ Harl. MS. 5306.
_Oculus Sacerdotis._ B. Mus. Harl. MS. 1307; MS. Reg. 6, E. i.; 8, c.
ii. (ff. 52-180); 8, B. xv. (ff. 1-163).
_Pupilla Oculi._ J. de Burgo. Harl. MS. 5442, and several early
editions in print.
_Quatuor Sermones_ (giving matter for instructions ordered four times
a year). Printed by Caxton, 1483, etc.
_Regimen Animarum._ Harl. MS. 2272.
_Speculum Curatorum._ Ralph Higden. Harl. MS. 1004.
_Speculum Eduardi._ B. Mus. Harl. MSS. 2379; 2383; 2388; 3363; MS.
Reg. 8, F. vii.
_Speculum Sacerdotum._ Harl. MS. 2346.
_Stella Clericorum._ Printed by Pynson.
_Summa Magri._ _Thomæ de Cabaham._ Harl. MS. 4065.
_Sermo Exhortatorius Cancellarii Eboracensis._ Printed by Wynkyn de
Worde, 1494 (?).
EPISCOPAL REGISTERS
CANTERBURY.--_Registrum Epistolarum Fratris Johannis Pecham_ (Rolls
Series, 3 vols.).
DURHAM.--_Reg. of Bishop Richard de Kellawe_ for 1311-1316 in
_Registrum Palatinum Dunelmense._ (Rolls Series.)
_Reg. of Bishop Bury_, 1338-1343. (Surtees Soc.)
EXETER.--In Prebendary Hingeston-Randolph’s monumental work already
published are the following:--
_Bishop Bronescombe_, 1272-1280 }
_Bishop Quevil_, 1280-1291 } 1 vol.
_Bishop Bitton_, 1292-1307 }
_Bishop Stapeldon_, 1307-1326.
_Bishop Berkeley_, 1327 }
_Bishop Grandisson_, 1327-1350 } 3 vols.
_Bishop Brantyngham_, 1370-1394.
_Bishop Stafford_, 1395-1419.
BATH AND WELLS.
_Bishop Walter Giffard_, 1265-1266. (Somerset Record Soc.)
_Bishop Drokensford_, 1309-1329. (Ibid.)
_Bishop Ralph of Shrewsbury_, 1329-1363. (Ibid.)
_Bishop Bowett_, 1401-1407. (Ibid.)
_Bishop Richard Fox_, 1492-1494. ed. E. C. Batten. 1889.
WINCHESTER.--The Hants Record Soc. has published:--
_Bishop John de Sandale_, 1316-1320 } 1 vol.
_Bishop Rigaud de Asserio_, 1320-1323 }
_Bishop W. of Wykeham_, 1366-1404. 2 vols.
WORCESTER.--The Worcestershire Hist. Soc. has published translations
and abstracts of:--
_Bishop Giffard_, 1268-1301.
_Sede Vacante_, 1301-1435.
YORK.--The Surtees Soc. has published:--
_Archbishop Walter Gray_, 1217-1255.
_Archbishop Giffard_, 1266-1279.
_Statuta Eccl. Cath. Lichfeldensis._ Cott. MS. Vitell, A. x. (ff.
163-205).
_Visitations of Churches in Exeter Diocese_, A.D. 1440. Harl. MS. 862,
ff. 32-36.
_Visitation of Archd. of Norwich_, A.D. 1363. P. R. O. Misc. of Exchq.
Q. R. Vol. 30.
_Visitation of Churches belonging to St. Paul’s, London._ ed. W. S.
Simpson (Camden Soc.). Misc. ix. pp. 1-38.
_Forms of Letters._ Harl. MSS. 670; 862; 3378; 2179; 3300. Add. MS.
32,089; 33,089.
GUILDS AND MYSTERY PLAYS
Ansell, Chas., _Treatise on Friendly Societies_.
Ashley, W. J., _Introduction to English Economic History_. 3 vols.
(especially vol. 1).
_Corpus Christi Guild at St. Botolph’s, Boston._ Register of Harl. MS.
4795.
F. F. Fox, _Some Account of Merchant Tailors of Bristol_. 1880.
_Statutes of the Guylde of the Puryficacion, Bury St. Edmund._ 1471.
Harl. M.S. 4626.
_Cambridge Guilds, Notes on._ Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 5813.
_Cambridge Guild Records_, ed. Mary Bateson (Cambridge Antiq. Soc.).
_English Gilds._ ed. Toulmin Smith (E. English Text Soc.). 1870.
Gross, Charles, _Gild Merchant_. 1890.
Gross, Charles, _Bibliography of British Municipal History, including
Gilds, etc._ 1897.
E. B. Jupp, _Company of Carpenters_. 2nd edition. 1887.
_Pynner Guild, London_ (1464). Brit. MS. Eg. MS. 1142.
_Vintners’ Company_, temp. Hen. VIII. Brit. Mus. Eg. MS. 1143.
Ludlow.--_Palmers’ Gild_ (in _Shropshire Archæol. Soc._, i. pp. 333
_seqq._).
_Sleaford Guild Accounts_ (1477-1545). Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 28,533.
_Norfolk Guild Certificates_ (ed. W. Rye for _Norfolk, etc._,
_Archæol. Soc._, xi. 105-36. 1892).
Ed. Smirke, _Ancient Ordinances of the Gild Merchant of Southampton_
(_Archæol. Journal_, xvi. 283-96, and 343-82. 1859).
_Stamford, Annals of_ (in _Peck’s Antiq._, Bk. xii. pp. 18-20).
_The Towneley Mysteries._ (Surtees Soc. 1836.)
York, _Reg. of Guild of Corpus Christi_. ed. Surtees Soc. 1872.
York, _Corpus Christi Guild Register_. Brit. Mus. Lansd. MS. 403.
_Extracts from the Municipal Records of the City of York._ R. Davis.
Appendix.
RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION AND PREACHING
_Confession, Forms of._ Harl. MS. 172 (ff. 11-19); Add. MS. 15,239 (f.
88 _seqq._); Harl. MS. 985; 7641; 1845; 6041 (f. 97 _seqq._); Sloane
MS. 774.
_De Confessione, Tractatus._ Mag. Willi. de Montibus, Brit. Mus. Cott.
MS. Vesp. D. xiii. (f. 115 _seq._).
_De Missis Celebrandis._ Brit. Mus. Cott. MS. Nero A. iii. (f. 131-57).
_Dives et Pauper._ Harl. MS. 149; MS. Reg. 17 c. xx. and 17 c. xxi.
Printed by Wynkyn de Worde, 1496; Pynson, 1493; and by Berthelet,
1536.
_Excommunications._ Brit. Mus. Harl. MS. 1307, f. 436. Cf. Harl. MS.
2399; Ar. MS. 130; Cott. MS. Claud. A. 11. Printed by W. de Worde in
Lands. MS. 379.
_Explanation of Commandments, etc._ Add. MS. 27,592.
_Expositio S. Jeronomi in Symbolum Apostolorum._ Printed by Roode,
1468.
_For Parish Priests._ Harl. MS. 4172 (written 1426, _vide_ f. 62 d).
_Fratris Laurentii Gulielmi de Savona Margarita Eloquentiæ._ Printed
by Caxton, 1479-80.
_Langforde’s Meditacyons for ye tyme of Mass._ Bib. Bodl. MS. Wood. 9.
John Myrc, _Instructions for Parish Priests_. Brit. Mus. Claud. A. ii.
ed. E. Peacock (E. English Text Soc.). 1868.
_Pœniteas cito._ A practical work on Confession, printed by Wynkyn de
Worde in 1510 and again in 1520. Well known abroad; Quentell issued
six editions.
_Sermones Michælis de Ungaria._ 1510.
_Speculum Christiani._ John Watton. Harl. MS. 206; 2250. Lansd. MS.
344; Add. MSS. 21,202; 22,121; 10,052; 15,237. Cf. also MSS. Reg.
8 E. v. and 9 D. xv. Printed four times before 1513.
_Speculum Christianorum._ Ushaw Coll. Lib.
_Speculum Peccatorum_, or “The Glasse for a Sinner.” Harl. MS. 3363
(ff. 59-64); MS. Reg. 8 F. vii. f. 24d.
_Speculum Penitentis_, by W. de Montibus. Cott. MS. Vesp. D. xiii.
(ff. 60-67).
_Summa Magistri Alani._ Brit. Mus. Cott. MS. Vesp. D. xiii. (ff.
67d-100).
_Tabula Fidei Christiani._ Brief statement for priests. Add. MS.
15,237 (ff. 9-54).
_Tabular Instructions._ Harl. MS. 1648.
MISCELLANEOUS
Wilkins’ _Concilia_.
_Lay Folks Mass Book._ ed. T. F. Simmons for E. Eng. Text Soc. 1879.
Lyndwood’s _Provinciale._
_Deed of Induction to a Benefice._ Harl. Ch. 44 c. 35.
_Valor Ecclesiasticus._
The _Lay Folks Catechism_ (E. Eng. Text Soc.). 1901.
Rock’s _Church of our Fathers_.
_The Prymer or Lay Folks Prayer Book_ (ed. H. Littlehales for E. Eng.
Text Soc.). 1897.
J. S. Burn, _History of Henley-on-Thames_, 1861 (particularly Chapter
V.).
H. Swinden, _History of Great Yarmouth_ (sect. xxii., St. Nicholas’
Church).
_Testamenta Eboracensia_ (Surtees Soc.). 6 vols.
_Chester Wills_ (copies). Brit. Mus. Harl. MS. 2067.
_Calendar of Wills in the Court of Hustings London._ ed. R. R. Sharpe.
_Fifty Earliest English Wills_ (E. Eng. Text Soc.). 1882.
_Wills and Inventories of Northern Counties._ 2 pts. (Surtees Soc.).
_Calendar of Wills._ Worcester, ed. E. A. Fry (Worc. Hist. Soc.).
Manship, _Hist. of Great Yarmouth_, ii. p. 114 _seqq._
J. J. Raven, _The Church Bells of Suffolk_.
W. A. Scott-Robertson, _Mediæval Folkestone_. 1876.
J. Gardner, _Hist. Account of Dunwich, Blithburg, and Southwold_. 1754.
A. Gibbons, _Early Lincoln Wills_, 1888.
C. Bailey, _Transcripts from Municipal Archives of Winchester_ (p. 66,
The Corpus Christi Procession).
_The Babees Book_ (ed. F. J. Furnivall for E. Eng. Text Soc.). 1868.
R. Whytforde, _A Werke for Housholders_. 1533.
Archbishop Hamilton, _The Catechism_.
T. C. Smith, _Records of Preston Parish and Amounderness_.
C. Atchley, _The Parish Clerk_.
Dr. Jessopp, _Parish Life in England before the Great Pillage_ (two
articles in _The Nineteenth Century_, January and March, 1898).
J. J. Wilkinson, _Receipts and Expenses in building Bodmin Church_.
1469-1472 (Camden Soc. Misc. vi. 1874).
_English Prayers_, printed (Sarum Horæ, 1527; B. Mus. c. 35, h. 9).
_The Prymer in English._ 1538.
Chr. Wordsworth, _Notes on Mediæval Services in England_. 1898.
_Parish Clerk, Duties of_ (_vide_ in _Clifton Antiq. Club_, i. 143).
_The Clerk’s Book of 1549._ ed. J. Wickham Legg (H. Bradshaw Soc. vol.
xxv.).
T. Sharp, _Illustrations of the History of Holy Trinity Church,
Coventry_. 1818.
James Christie, _Some Account of Parish Clerks_. 1893.
O. J. Reichel, _The Rise of the Parochial System in England_. 1905.
H. W. Clarke, _The History of Tithes_. 1887.
H. Grove, _Alienated Tithes_. 1896.
Lupset, T., _Exhortation to Younge Men_. 1535.
PARISH LIFE IN MEDIÆVAL ENGLAND
CHAPTER I
THE PARISH
Any account of parish life in mediæval England must include much more
than might at first sight be supposed. To imagine that the story of
the parson and his church could adequately represent the story of the
parish, even with all that the one had to do for his people and all
that in the other was contained and done, is somewhat like thinking
that the biographies of kings and nobles and the chronicle of their
battles and achievements would tell properly the story of a people or a
country. The fact is, that in those far-off days the parish church was
the centre of popular life all the country over, and that the priest
and other parochial officials were the recognised managers of many
interests beyond those of a strictly ecclesiastical nature. Religion
and religious observances then formed an integral part of the English
people’s very existence in a way somewhat difficult for us to grasp in
these days, when the undoubted tendency is to set God and the things
of God outside the pale of ordinary worldly affairs, and to keep them
out as far as possible. It is unnecessary here, of course, to determine
which method is right and which is wrong; but it is useful, to say the
least, that the fact of this change of attitude should be borne in mind
in any examination into the parish life of mediæval England. To fail to
appreciate the intimate connection between the Church and the people
throughout that period of our national life will cause the observer to
misread many of the facts, upon which a correct judgment of that time
must depend. A writer in the _National Review_ does not overstate the
truth when he says--
“In the Middle Ages the conscious sharing in a world-wide tradition
bound the local to the universal life, and through art and ritual the
minds of the poor were familiarised with facts of the Christian faith.
By our own poor I fear these facts are very dimly realised to-day.”
THE PARISH
At the outset it will be well to determine the exact meaning of the
word “parish,” and to establish as far as is possible the origin of
the English parochial system. As an institution, although occupying
so important a position from the early Middle Ages, the division of
the country into parishes does not appear to have come down from great
antiquity. The word “parish”--the English equivalent for the Latin
_parocia_--is derived from the Christian use of the Greek word παροικία
in the sense of a district or diocese under the rule and jurisdiction
of a bishop. In a recent paper on “The Rise of the Parochial
System,” printed in the _Transactions of the Exeter Architectural
and Archæological Society_, the author, the Rev. Oswald Reichel, has
treated this question fully and in a most satisfactory manner. What
has been so well done need not be done over again. I consequently make
no apology for here following very closely his line of argument and
presenting his conclusions.
In Rome, Carthage, and other large cities, “for the sake of the
people,” as Pope Innocent I. says in a letter written in A.D. 416,
there were district clergy appointed to preside at the services on the
Sundays. Even then, however, in order that they might not consider
themselves “separated from his communion,” he sent to them by his
acolytes what he calls the “fermentum,” made by himself, which has
been variously interpreted to mean the Holy Eucharist consecrated by
him as bishop, or bread he had blessed, as a symbol of the communion
of all the district churches with the central one; but which is almost
certainly the former.
These district clergy, however, were not parish priests as we
understand them. For (1) they belonged to the church of the bishop,
though from time to time detailed for duty in the various churches,
which existed according to need in each region or division of the city.
Over each of these regions a deacon presided as the bishop’s delegate.
(2) The direct government of the church and the cure of souls belonged
to the bishop in all places within his jurisdiction, and services were
performed by him, assisted by the city clergy, on fixed days in various
churches in rotation. (3) Although it is possible to trace separate
revenues for separate churches as early as the end of the fifth
century, the offerings of the churches of a district were not kept
apart, but were administered by the deacon of the region to which they
all belonged as contributions to a common fund.
It is obvious, therefore, that the district clergy, thus described,
cannot be claimed as the origin of our parochial system. The English
parish priest was established to meet the needs of the country rather
than of the city; and, beginning in the first instance to act as
chaplains of landowners, who required the services of religion for
themselves or their tenants, they gradually acquired the position of
ecclesiastical freeholders. Appointed by the patron, they received
their office and their spiritual faculties from the bishop of the see;
and, whilst subordinated to him according to law, were yet irremoveable
except by the strict process of canonical law and for serious offences.
Whatever may have been the early dependence of the priest on the
patron, by the fourth Council of Orleans, A.D. 541, the bishop was
directed to control and protect these clergy and in A.D. 813 the
Council of Mainz forbade laymen to deprive presbyters of churches which
they served or to appoint them without episcopal sanction. It was not,
however, till the twelfth century, according to Mr. Reichel, that the
country parson had acquired full recognition as the permanent and
official ruler of a portion of the Lord’s vineyard presided over by the
bishop of the diocese.
The sphere of work of the local clergy was the parish, which was
by no means the same as the town, hamlet, or manor. According to
an authority, in the thirteenth century the distinction was fully
recognised. “For in one town there may be several parishes,” he says,
“and in one parish several manors, and several hamlets may belong
to one manor.” The parochial system, then, in the Middle Ages, had
come to occupy three separate _functions_. It had acquired, in the
first place, the notion of a well-defined group of families organised
for the purposes of social order and the relief of needy brethren.
Secondly, the word “parish,” applied to the same group, was regarded as
a sub-unit of ecclesiastical administration, directly under the parish
priest, indirectly under the bishop. Thirdly, it was the name of the
foundation property or estate.
From the earliest times in the Christian Church the duty of all to
assist according to their means in the support of their poorer brethren
was fully recognised. The peculiar method, however, of enforcing this
duty by the regular payment of tithes was apparently insisted on in the
West by the second Council of Macon in A.D. 585, and in the Council of
Rouen in A.D. 650. In England, to speak only of it, by the middle of
the tenth century the religious duty of paying tithe was enforceable
at law, and this tax was commonly called “God’s portion,” “God’s
consecrated property,” “the Lord’s Bread,” “the patrimony of Christ,”
“the tribute of needy souls.” This was undoubtedly the view taken in
pre-Reformation days of the duty of all to pay the tenth portion of
their goods for the use of the Church. What that use was has frequently
been entirely misrepresented and misunderstood. In the words of the
author of the tract on the _Rise of the Parochial System in England_--
“it must be always remembered that in the view of the Church, tithes
other than first fruits, and tithes of increase, were destined not to
provide a maintenance for the clergy, but for the relief and support
of the poor; and the rector, whether of a religious house or parochial
incumbent, was supposed to administer them for these purposes, he
being only a ruler or administrator of them.... During the whole of
the time that the English Church was ruled as an integral part of the
Western Patriarchate, this view of the destination of tithes, and of
the rector’s or administrator’s duty in respect of them, was never
lost sight of.”
In regard, then, to the general notion of a parish, and as to how the
parochial system was extended and developed in England, Mr. Reichel’s
general summary at the end of his tract is important and interesting.
It began, he concludes, in Saxon times, and assumed its complete form
in the Councils of London and Westminster in the twelfth century.
In the centuries which followed, and with which we are concerned,
the administration of tithes was frequently entrusted to the actual
incumbent, and in some cases to religious houses or collegiate
establishments. But in any case the duty of the administrator was
understood and acknowledged, and, it must be supposed, acted upon. The
mistaken notion as to this has arisen probably from a neglect to bear
in mind what happened at the period of the Reformation.
“At and since the Reformation,” says our author, “custom has
persistently regarded such administrations as endowments of the
parson, clerical or lay, not as gifts to the poor, of which he is only
the administrator. Monastic parsons were then simply deprived of them
by law, and the administrations they held were granted as property
to laymen, whilst, to meet the wishes of a married clergy, parochial
incumbents were released from all claims at law for charitable
purposes.”
It is important to bear in mind that a properly organised “parish” was
a corporation, and acted as a “corporation,” and as such no lords of
the manor or political personages had any sort of power or authority
over it. They might be, and, in fact, of course always were, members
of the corporation--parishioners--and their positions entitled them to
respect and gave, no doubt, authority to their suggestions. But the
records of the old parishes that have come down to our time clearly
prove that “Squire-rule” over parson and people in mediæval parochial
life did not exist. Sometimes, no doubt, the “great men” of a place
tried to have their own way, but they were quickly shown that the
“corporation” of the parish was under the protection of a power greater
than any they possessed--the power of the Church; and, as a matter of
fact, this was so well recognised that it is difficult enough to find
individual instances of any great landlords who were willing to try
conclusions with the paramount Spiritual authority. To “Holy Mother
Church” all were the same, and within God’s House the tenant, the
villain, and the serf stood side by side with the overlord and master.
In fact, at times, as when a feast fell upon a day when work had to be
done by custom for the lord of the manor, the law of the Church forbade
these servile works, and the master had perforce to acquiesce. In other
words, the parish, so far as it was organised, had been the creation of
the Church, and was free.
“The parish,” writes Bishop Hobhouse, “was the community of the
township organised for Church purposes, and subject to Church
discipline, with a constitution which recognised the rights of the
whole body as an aggregate, and the right of every adult member,
_whether man or woman_, to a voice in self-government, but at the same
time kept the self-governing community under a system of inspection
and restraint by a central authority outside the parish boundaries.”
One thing especially bound the parish together most firmly. The fact
that the belief and practice of all was the same--that every soul in
the parish worshipped in the same church and in the same way, that
all kept the same fasts and feasts and were assisted by the same
Sacraments, gave a unity to the corporation almost impossible now to
conceive. But over and above this, the knowledge that parson and people
were bound together by the parochial system, and, so to speak, existed
for each other, strengthened even the ties of pure religion. In nearly
all the documents illustrating parish life of, say, the fifteenth
century, there is evidence of the community of purpose of pastor and
people which is really astounding. As already pointed out, every rector
and vicar throughout England not only regarded himself in theory as a
steward of the _panis Dominicus_ (the Lord’s Bread), under which name
was meant charity to all that came to claim support; but if the laws
of the English Church and Lyndwood’s authoritative gloss mean anything
whatever, this sacred duty was carried out in practice. Wherever
rectors do not reside in the place of their cures, says Archbishop
Peckham, they are bound to keep proctors or agents to exercise proper
hospitality or charity as far as the means of their churches will
allow, and at the very least to relieve every parishioner in extreme
necessity; and the gloss adds that the rector of a church on the
high-road and in a frequented place will obviously have to spend much
more than one whose cure lies off the beaten track. For this reason,
it says, the clergy of the churches in England are well endowed,
especially where the calls upon them for this hospitality are great.
This duty of considering the revenues of a parish as common property
to be held in trust for the needs of hospitality and the relief of
the poor is inculcated in every tract dealing with the subject, and
acknowledged in numberless ways. In the will of William Sheffield, Dean
of York in 1496, for example, the testator, after making some small
bequests, says--
“I will that the rest of my goods be distributed amongst the poor,
in all the benefices that I have ever held or now hold--more or less
being given according to the length of time I have lived in them
and maintained hospitality--for the property of a church is the
property of the poor, and for this reason the conscience is greatly
burdened in the disposal of the goods of the Church. And for the heavy
responsibility of these distributions, Jesus have mercy.”
In another case, in the diocese of Exeter in 1440, a rector is
specially praised at a Visitation, and it is declared that he “has
done much good, in his parish, because he has rebuilt the chancel of
his church, and has added two good rooms, one for himself, and ‘one to
exercise hospitality’ in behalf of those who need it.”
Here, before speaking of the working of a parish in pre-Reformation
days, it may be convenient briefly to treat about the somewhat
intricate question of tithes. The gifts offered by the faithful to the
Church for the support of the ministers, the upkeep of its officers, or
as an acknowledgment of special services, such as baptisms, marriages,
the churching of women, and burials, were roughly classed under two
main divisions--tithes and oblations. The latter were personal, and
to a large extent voluntary, although custom had somewhat determined
the minimum fees which all who could were expected to pay for
services exercised in their behalf. In England, as Lyndwood notes,
oblations were almost wholly made in the form of money; and by law
these offerings were regarded more as being the personal property
of the priests than were tithes, and for this reason they might be
spent more freely, according to the wishes of the clergy. Still, even
in regard to this, the insertion of the word “generally” in the law
seems to the author of the gloss to point to the fact that the clergy
are not altogether free as to the application of any surplus from
these oblations made to them, if for no other reason than because any
apparent squandering of such ecclesiastical revenues might “tend to
destroy the devotion of the people.” In oblations of this sort, of
course, are not included such as were made in kind for the service of
the altar and offered to the priest during the Mass, such as the bread
and wine for the Sacrifice, brought in turns by the chief parishioners
on Sundays and Feast-days.
_Tithes_ are commonly defined as “the tenth part of all fruits and
profits justly acquired, owed to God in recognition of His supreme
dominion over man, and to be paid to the ministers of the Church.” In
the Old Dispensation this recognition was made by Abraham, promised
under vow by Jacob, and legally regulated by Moses. In early Christian
times, if there is no evidence of the existence of the practice, it
is only because the voluntary offerings of the faithful were ample to
supply the needs of the Church and its ministers, whilst the community
of goods practised by the first Christians hardly allowed the existence
of real poverty among them. As the Church grew, its needs, and in
particular the less obvious needs of the faithful poor, required some
more regular and certain resources than the irregular and voluntary
alms of its richer members. So in the Council of Macon in A.D. 585 is
found the first express declaration of the Christian obligation of
paying tithes, not indeed as a new law, but as the assertion of an
admitted Christian principle. In the eighth century these payments
began to be regularly made throughout the Western Church, and in
England, according to the Saxon Chronicle, in A.D. 855 the father of
King Alfred, Ethelwulf of Wessex, is said to have “assigned to the
Church the tenth part of his land all over his kingdom for the love
of God and his own everlasting weal.” In this it is almost certain
that the Chronicle is wrong in the form of expression, and that what
Ethelwulf did was to decree the payment of a tithe of the produce,
and not hand over a tenth of the land as an endowment of the Church.
And here it may be well to remark that there was obviously nothing
sacro-sanct about the tenth portion payable for Church purposes. It is
merely a portion that is taken to represent what is generally a fair
offering to God, and one not too burdensome on those who had to pay. In
some cases it might be and indeed, according to custom, was greater or
less in different places.
Tithes were usually divided into two kinds--_predial_ and _personal_;
“some coming of the earth,” says the author of _Dives and Pauper_,
“as corn, wine, bestayle, that is brought forth by the land, and such
thyngs be clepyd _predyales_ in latyn. Some thyngs comyth oonly of
the person, as be merchandy and werkmanschyp, and such bene clepyd
_personales_ in latyn.” In these a man is to account his expenses, and
then see whether he has gained, and so pay a tithe of his profit; but
this may not be done in the case of the predial tithes. In these “he is
not to count his expenses, but pay his tithe of all, neither the worst
nor the best, but as it comes.”
The Council of Merton, in 1305, set forth a schedule of the things
upon which tithes had to be paid by law; this included the cutting and
felling of trees and woods, the pasturage of the forests, and the sale
of the timber; the profits of vineyards, fisheries, rivers, dovecots,
and fish-stews; the fruits of trees, the offspring of animals, the
grass harvest, and that of all things sown; of fruits, of warrens of
wild animals, of hawking, of gardens and manses, of wool, flax, and
wine; of grain and of turf, where it was dug and dried; of pea-fowl,
swans, and capons; of geese and ducks; of lambs, calves, and colts,
of hedge cuttings, of eggs, of rabbits, of bees with their honey and
wax; together with the profits from mills, hunting, handicrafts of all
sorts, and every manner of business. As to these, _Dives and Pauper_,
on the authority of canonists, teaches that people should be reminded
that tithe is, in the first place, an acknowledgment to God for what
He has Himself first given to men. Consequently, all should willingly
pay this tribute to Him, and thus continue to deserve His blessings:
also, that they should remember that nothing was exempt from this
tribute--wind-mills and water-mills, tanneries and fulling-mills,
all mines of silver and other metals, all quarries of stone, and all
profits of the merchant and the craftsman.
_Predial_ tithe, in a word, was payable on the annual crops of corn,
wine, oil, and fruits, etc., and on the natural increase of cattle,
including milk and cheese. These predial tithes were distinguished,
again, into the _Greater_ tithe--that is, on corn, wine, and wool;
and the _Lesser_ tithe on vegetables and fruits, etc. The tithes
_personal_ were to be paid on profits of trade and business. All this
was acknowledged as sanctioned or ordered by “Divine law or custom.”
All tithes on the land-predial were to be paid to the rector of the
parish in which the land was situated or the animals usually fed; all
tithes on business occupation, to the parish where the tithe-payer was
bound by law to receive the Sacraments. “Tithes personal,” says the
author above quoted, “as of merchandise and of crafte, man shall payen
to his parish church where he dwelleth and taketh his Sacraments and
heareth his service, but tithes predial shall been payed to the church
to which the manor and the land belongeth, unless custom be in the
contrary.” Difficulties sometimes necessarily arose as to cases where
flocks of sheep, etc., were at different times in different parishes,
but by episcopal constitutions this was settled on the common-sense
principle of dividing the tithe receivable, according to the proportion
of the time spent in each parish. It was otherwise in the case of
cattle feeding on land in several parishes--“horn with horn,” as the
natives called such a practice; in this case the tithe was to be
paid to the parish in which the permanent sheds of the cattle at the
farmstead were situated. With difficulties of this nature it is not
necessary to deal, and the foregoing examples are given merely to show
how universal the practice was and how carefully the obligation was
fulfilled.
Bishop Peter Quevil, in the Synod of Exeter, held in 1287, lays down
several principles which are to guide the authorities in the levying of
tithes. It will be remembered that it is from these Constitutions that
so much as to the practical working of the Church of England in the
thirteenth century is known. From what he says as to tithes, it seems
that there was growing up a practice of seeking to deduct the cost of
production before counting the tithe. This might seem not unreasonable,
but the bishop condemns it, and says that “expenses are by no means to
be deducted first.” In the same way he refused to recognise as right
any claim to set aside a tenth part of a field and to count as tithe
of the whole whatever was grown upon that portion. So, too, in the
west country a practice had grown up in certain places for farmers to
refuse to pay their dues until the parson had given a harvest feast and
a pair of gloves to the workmen. This is forbidden as contrary to law.
In the same way, as the bishop says, “many and well-nigh unanswerable
questions” arose in the levying of the tithe; but from time to time
these were made the subject of synodal directions, as may be seen in
Wilkins’ great collection, and in practice these difficulties would
appear generally to have answered themselves by the application of a
little common sense, assisted by a measure of good-will, which most
certainly existed in those days.
It is usually difficult to obtain information about the amounts of
the tithe derived from the various sources titheable. Generally the
accounts do not set out the items, and give merely the totals. For the
diocese of Rochester, however, in 1536, the _Valor Ecclesiasticus_
gives the details in many instances. From these we learn that the
tithe generally had a twofold division; for instance, the Rector of
Huntingdon, besides £9 a year derived from the rectory house and the
rent of 21 acres of pasture, accounted for the tithe of grain and hay,
which produced, according to the then money value, 26_s._ 8_d._, and
the tithe of wool and of lambs, bringing in £4 8_s._ 9_d._ He received
also an annual average of £17 2_s._ 5_d._ from oblations and private
donations. In the same way the Vicar of Dartford received £16 13_s._
4_d._ for the tithe of wool and lambs, £2 for the hay tithe, and £25
13_s._ 4_d._ for all other tithes and oblations.
A word must now be said about the impropriation of parochial tithes
to cathedrals, monasteries, and collegiate establishments. It is
very generally stated that this was one of the great abuses of the
mediæval Church redressed at the time of the Reformation. Without in
any way wishing to defend the practice of assigning tithes to purposes
other than the work of the parish in which they were receivable, it
should in justice be borne in mind that this was never done without
the sanction of the bishop, and upon the condition that the vicar
should receive amply sufficient for his support and for the purpose
of his parochial work. The notion of “the great robbery” of parishes
to endow monasteries, and of the “miserable stipends” on which those
who occupied the post of vicars existed or starved, is in view of
records not borne out by facts. The “miserable stipends” formed only
part of the emoluments of those who served impropriated churches;
they had also the lesser tithes and all oblations made to them, and
the bishops were bound by law to see, and in fact did see, that their
income was sufficient. Moreover, though not very numerous, there are
in the episcopal registers a sufficient number of examples to show
that the arrangements, made between the impropriators and the vicar,
and sanctioned by the bishop, were open to readjustment if necessary.
At East Anthony, in the diocese of Exeter, for example, this is
exemplified, and the settlement made by Bishop Grandisson is confirmed
by Bishop Stapeldon, and the principle is laid down that “the Bishop
and his successors have power, should they see fit, to encrease,
diminish, or change the amount to be paid to the holder of the vicarage
and the conditions upon which it is held.”
It will be useful to take one or two examples of the division of
tithes between the impropriator and vicar in an impropriated living.
The rectory of Preston, in the county of Kent, for instance, was
impropriated to St. Augustine’s, Canterbury, which derived £16 a year
from it. Out of this sum 53_s._ 5_d._ in money was paid by way of
pension to the vicar, and 6_s._ 8_d._ in lieu of a certain quantity of
corn--in all £3. This, however, was not by any means the whole income
enjoyed by the vicar, for he also received from the lesser tithes and
personal oblations another £6 15_s._, bringing his stipend up to the
sum of £9 15_s._ a year, or ample, according to the value of money in
the sixteenth century, to live upon. Again, the church of Monketon and
that of Birchington, in the same county of Kent, were impropriated to
the monastery of Christ Church, Canterbury. From them the monks derived
£66 13_s._ 10_d._ for their house, and out of this £1 12_s._ 4_d._ had
to be spent upon the poor of the place, and £12 1_s._ 8_d._ was paid
to the vicar as his stipend. He received also £11 annually from tithes
and oblations, and paid two curates, to serve Birchington and another
annexed chapel, £9 13_s._ 4_d._ This left him still £13 8_s._ 4_d._ as
his own annual stipend, which was about three times what he considered
sufficient for each of his curates. To take one more example: from the
church of Chistlett the monks of St. Augustine’s, Canterbury--who, by
the way, were lords of the manor--received from the rectorial tithes
£40 a year; the vicar’s tithes, together with the glebe lands, bringing
him £30 a year.
It would appear from these instances, which could be multiplied
indefinitely, that, except for the fact that tithe was taken from
the district where it was raised, the grievance of which so much has
been made, is an academic rather than a real one, and one of modern
invention rather than one existing in the Middle Ages. That there
were complaints occasionally may be allowed. Still, not only were
they rare, but in the episcopal registers it may be seen that, in the
few instances where they came before the bishop, they were declared
to be groundless. They generally arose out of the Visitations when
the vicar had been ordered to repair the chancel of his church, or
procure some choir-books, or to do some other work for which by law the
incumbent was held responsible. The vicar pleaded as his excuse for
the dilapidation, or for his inability to do the work required, that
the impropriator should be made to do all this, as he took so much of
the tithe away from the place. It is rarely indeed that such a claim
was considered reasonable, and for the most part the reply was that
this had been considered at the time of the original impropriation, and
that sufficient had been allowed to the vicar to carry out these legal
obligations, and that all things had been made fitting and all repairs
seen to before the vicarage had been established.
The grounds upon which impropriation made by lawful authority was
justified in the Middle Ages were, apparently, that originally tithe
had been paid to the bishop of the diocese for the general good of the
entire district. By his administration of these diocesan funds he was
enabled to assist good works of every kind at his discretion. When
in process of time the parish became a sub-unit of administration,
the local tithe passed into the administration of the local parson;
but never without the dormant notion, not only of episcopal control,
but fundamentally of ultimate episcopal authority over it. Up to the
Reformation it was taught that tithe really ought to be divided into
four parts: one part to go to the bishop, if he needed it; one to the
ministers; one to the poor; and the fourth part for the repair of
the church fabric. The notion that it was the great landowners who
in the first instance endowed the parish churches with tithes, and
subsequently took them, or a portion of them, away and gave them to
religious houses and colleges, is for the most part quite imaginary.
Tithe was, as already pointed out, the recognition of God’s supreme
authority over the world, and a public acknowledgment that all things
came from His hands, and the idea, which is a product of modern
notions, that it was a charge made upon the land for the benefit of
religion, is wholly alien to the spirit of pre-Reformation days. The
very fact that this does not explain the existence of personal tithes,
shows that the giving of tithes generally did not depend upon the
generosity of any landowner or lord of the manor.
Neither was the tithe ever regarded as the absolute property of the
incumbent. Besides his recognised duty in regard to the repairs of
the chancel, the poor were regarded as having legal claims upon what
was received by him. What seems to us a somewhat strange custom was
occasionally practised in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. This
was the farming out of tithes by the rectors, or, in other words,
raising money upon their expected receipts. For this the sanction of
the bishop had previously to be obtained, and any pledging of the tithe
for more than the current year was illegal. Beyond this, where a rector
or prelate put his benefice out to farm, according to the law, he was
bound to get four of his parishioners, approved by the bishop, to be
surety for the faithful payment of the full portion (_pinguis portio_)
of the tithe due to the poor of the parish. “I hold,” however, says the
canonist Lyndwood, that this is not necessary “in the case of a rector
or prelate, who, after farming out his tithes lawfully, continues
to live in his benefice, unless he is suspected of not intending to
succour those in poverty.”
The duty of paying lawful tithes was constantly inculcated by synodal
decrees, by bishops’ letters, and from the pulpit. Thus John Myrc, in
his _Instructions for Parish Priests_, tells them--
“Teche hem also welle and greythe
How they schell paye here teythe
Of all thynge that doth hem newe
They shuld teythe welle and trewe
After the custome of that cuntraye
Every mon hys teythynge schale pay.”
The author, however, says that he has no need to speak much of that
matter, as priests will see to it that their tithes are paid in due
time; and in a _Sarum Manuale_ it is found set down that by law “men
of religion, freres, and all other,” who “go about and preache Goddes
worde,” are commanded to preach eight times in the year upon the nature
of tithes and on the obligation of paying them to the parish priests.
That this duty was recognised, and that on the whole it was cheerfully
complied with in the Middle Ages, would appear to be certain. It is,
moreover, no less apparent that these payments were regarded, not in
the light of a charge upon the land, but of a genuine acknowledgment to
God of His supreme governance of the world, that all things were His,
and that in His hands were the ends of the earth. The general spirit
in which the obligation was regarded may be seen in the wills of the
period, where the testators not only desired that all lawful tithes
might be paid from their estates, but very generally left benefactions
to their parish churches “for tithes forgotten.”
CHAPTER II
THE PARISH CHURCH
The “parish” is described by Bishop Hobhouse as the community dwelling
in an area defined by the Church, organised for Church purposes, and
subject to Church authority. “Within this area,” he says, “every
resident was a parishioner, and, as such, owed his duty of worship
and contribution to one stated church, and his duty of confession and
submission to the official guidance of a stated pastor, entitled his
Rector, or to the Rectors deputy, entitled Vicar.”
The centre of every mediæval parish, then, was its church. It was,
as it were, the mainspring of the machinery of parochial life, which
cannot be understood without a full knowledge of its position in regard
to the people generally, and of all that it was to the inhabitants of a
district in pre-Reformation days.
For our present purposes, we need not, of course, concern ourselves
with trying to solve the vexed question as to who it was that first
built the parochial churches. About this there is, and probably will
remain, much obscurity. In the first instance, in England, very
possibly, they were the creation of some nobles or rich landlords, who
desired to secure the services of religion for the people dwelling
upon their estates, as tenants, servants, or serfs, and who, having
obtained from the bishop of the district his leave to set up an
oratory or church, obtained the ministration of a priest. Whatever the
origin, it is certain that long before the fourteenth or fifteenth
centuries the parish church had practically come to be the property
of the parishioners generally in a very definite manner, and, with
certain exceptions, to which reference will presently be made, upon
the inhabitants of a parochial district as a corporation lay the duty
of repairing and rebuilding the fabric, of beautifying the edifice, of
maintaining the services, and of seeing generally to its well-being.
This they did as a matter of well-recognised obligation and duty; but
obviously also as a matter which afforded them much satisfaction and
pleasure.
The fabric of the church consisted of the _nave_, with its chapels and
aisles, when it had any, and the _chancel_, which included the choir
and presbytery. In England, at least, there was a well-recognised and
very general distinction between the chancel and the nave. The former
was sometimes called the “parson’s freehold,” and to him belonged the
entire care of his “chancel,” and the duty of keeping it in repair. In
fact, it was not disputed that one part of the tithe received by the
priest from the parish was intended to furnish him with ample means for
fulfilling this duty, and in the event of death removing an incumbent,
where there were dilapidations in the chancel, which had not been seen
to by him, his successor could, and frequently did, claim compensation
from the heirs of the deceased.
The synodal directions given with regard to the care and repair of the
chancels are definite. “In parish churches,” says one of 1350, taken
as an example, “the chancel is to be found and maintained fittingly
in all things by the Rector.” Bishop Brantyngham, of Exeter, issued
a “declaration” as to the custom in his diocese as laid down by his
predecessor, Bishop Quevil. In this he says that--
“the work of constructing and repairing the chancels of all mother
churches belongs to the rectors of the parishes; but that of the naves
pertains to the parishioners, without regard to any contrary custom.
In the case of chapels, which have their distinct parochial district,
the entire duty of maintenance belongs to the parishioners of the
chapel, as it is for their convenience such chapels are built, and,
moreover, they may be obliged to assist, in case of need, the mother
church.”
This was the ordinary rule in England, as we see from the gloss on
the Constitutions of Cardinal Othoboni, where Lyndwood calls it “the
common custom in England that the parishioners repair the nave of the
church where they sit,” and that if the rector has the fourth part
of the tithe, which was intended for the repairs of the church, he
should by law see to all the repairs. “By praiseworthy custom,” in
England, however, the author adds, the repair of the chancel only is
an obligation of the rector, although he cannot entirely free himself
of all responsibility for the rest of the church. Sometimes, however,
as the canonist notes, as, for example, in some London churches
and elsewhere, the care of the chancel is also a matter for the
parishioners, and the parson, although taking “the fourth part of the
tithe” intended to meet the general expenses of church repairs, is yet
held to be free of the obligation.
Sometimes, as may be seen in the visitations of parochial churches,
difficulties arose about the precise obligation of parson and people as
to the repair even of the chancel. In the Register of Bishop Stapledon,
for instance, at the inquiry held in 1301, at St. Mary Church, the
parishioners represented that, up to the time of the then vicar,
they had been accustomed to repair the chancel, and because of this
the tithe on all store cattle had not been demanded of them. The new
vicar had made them pay this, but yet had not done the repairs to the
chancel, and wanted them to continue to do so. So, too, during Bishop
Grandisson’s episcopate, the question whether the parishioners paid the
“decimas instauri” was the determining reason as to whether they should
be compelled to repair the chancels or not.
In regard to the care of the fabric the case of appropriated churches
was somewhat peculiar. The corporation to which the living was
impropriated held the position of rector, the cure being administered
by a vicar appointed by it and licensed by the bishop, just as in
the case of a nomination to any benefice by a patron. As a rule the
religious house, college, or official holding the impropriated tithes,
got rid of the rectorial obligation of seeing to the maintenance of
the chancel, by arranging with the bishop that the vicar should have
sufficient regular income to cover all the expenses of dilapidations.
In this case the usual practice was that, upon first becoming lawfully
possessed of the appropriated tithe, the corporation was bound by
the bishop, as one condition of his assent, to place the chancel in
thorough repair and to see that everything, which the rector had been
bound by custom to provide, was in good order. After this had been
done, it was calculated, and indeed arranged, that out of the income
of the vicar these could be maintained in good order. The arrangement,
however, was subject to revision by the bishop, and although in
practice the original agreement was usually upheld, there are to be
found examples of the holders of impropriated tithes being compelled by
the ecclesiastical authority to contribute to the repairs of chancels,
etc., and even to undertake the entire work, where the means of the
vicars were obviously inadequate to do what was necessary.
Some examples of this will illustrate the matter more completely than
any statement of the practice. In 1296, Bishop Thomas de Bytton, of
Exeter, was called upon to adjudicate upon this question in regard
to the vicarage of Morwenstowe, the greater tithes of which had been
previously appropriated to the Hospital of St. John at Bridgewater by
Bishop Peter Quevil, with the consent of his canons. The grant had been
made with the provision that fitting support should be allowed for
the vicarage, the amount to be determined and arranged by the bishop
and his successors. This, Bishop de Bytton did, in fact, determine by
the document referred to. The vicar, according to this settlement, by
reason of his vicarage, was to take certain tithes, which, amongst
others, were to include that of all the hay and the mills in the whole
parish, as well as the rent of certain crofts, etc. The brethren of
the Hospital were to find or renew all the ornaments and books not
provided by the parishioners, and it was agreed that these, once being
set right, must afterwards be maintained by the vicar. He was also to
see to all ordinary repairs, and even extraordinary repairs up to the
amount of the fourth part of the tithe received by him. But “any other
extraordinary expense, together with the upkeep, repair, or rebuilding
of the chancel of the church, was to be met by the said religious
brethren” of the Hospital of Bridgewater.
That this settlement was not at all exceptional could be proved by many
documents; one must suffice. When Bodmin church was rebuilt between the
years 1469 and 1472 the patrons, the Monastery of St. Petrock, defrayed
the entire expenses connected with the chancel. On the other hand, to
illustrate the usual practice, the case of the vicarage of Launcells in
Devonshire may be cited. The Abbot and Monastery of Hartland held the
appropriated tithes, and in 1382, the chancel standing in need of great
repairs, apparently amounting almost to rebuilding, the vicar refused
to carry out the injunctions of the archdeacon forthwith to undertake
the work, on the plea that this was the duty of the Abbey of Hartland.
The convent denied their obligation, but submitted themselves in the
matter to the judgment of the bishop of the diocese. After holding an
inquiry, Bishop Thomas Brantyngham declared that the vicar received
tithes for the purpose of carrying out all repairs to the chancel, and
that consequently the monks were free from the obligation.
What the material church was to the parishioners of a mediæval parish
is well described in the synodical Constitutions of Bishop Woodlock, of
Winchester, at the beginning of the fourteenth century.
“If the Israelites,” he says, “living in the shadow of the law,
required specially dedicated places in which to worship the Lord, with
how much more reason are Christians, to whom the loving-kindness and
the humanity of the Saviour has appeared, bound by all the means at
their disposal to obtain consecrated churches, in which day by day the
Son of God is offered in Sacrifice.”
Then after saying that churches that have not been consecrated are to
be solemnly dedicated as soon as possible, he continues--
“The anniversaries of the dedications of parish churches are to
be kept by the parishioners, and those attending chapels in the
neighbourhood not themselves dedicated. The day and the year of the
consecration, with the name of the consecrating prelates, are to be
entered in the calendar and other books belonging to the church.”
The dedication of the church to God was the essential condition of its
endowment. According to Bracton, the dower made to the church with
church lands at its dedication, was a possession of “pure and free
alms,” in distinction “from a lay feud,” seeing that it “is with more
propriety called free, since it is dedicated as it were to God.”
“If,” says the Constitution of Cardinal Otho for the English
Church--“if under the Old Testament the Temple was dedicated to God
for the offering of dead animals, with how much more reason should the
churches of the New Law be specially consecrated to Him when on the
altars is daily offered for us by the hands of the priest the living
and true Victim, that is, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.”
The reverence due to churches, and things once dedicated to the service
of churches, was universal in the Middle Ages. Cloths, used as chrism
cloths at Baptism or Confirmation, were to be devoted to ecclesiastical
purposes or destroyed, and those who turned anything thus once offered
to God to any secular use were considered gravely blameworthy. The
gloss upon a Constitution of St. Edmund of Canterbury to this effect
extends this prohibition of desecration to everything connected at any
time with a church. Even the woodwork of a building, once dedicated,
was to be destroyed, unless it was capable of being used for another
ecclesiastical purpose. So too the “cloths used on the altar, the
seats, candlesticks, veils, and sacred vestments too old to use,” were
to be burnt and the ashes buried.
The parishioners, as already pointed out, were bound by law and custom
to provide for the repair of the nave of their parish church, and for
the general upkeep of the church services. There was little need to
compel them to fulfil this duty, for the churchwardens’ accounts and
other documents, especially during the fifteenth century, when we
have the fullest information, show us that over the entire length and
breadth of England the people were gladly rebuilding and beautifying
their parish churches. A few examples of this spirit may be of interest
as showing what God’s house was to the entire people in pre-Reformation
days. The labours of Prebendary Hingeston-Randolph on the diocesan
registers of the Exeter diocese enable the inquirer into parochial
manners and customs of the past to find ample material. In the register
of Bishop Stafford of Exeter (1394-1419) an account of the rebuilding
of the parish church of Broadhempston is given. The parishioners, about
A.D. 1400, petitioned the bishop to be allowed to rebuild their church:
they represented that it was in a ruinous condition and notoriously
clumsily constructed. It was their wish, they said, to build it on a
larger scale, and in a different part of the churchyard. To this the
bishop assented, on condition of their promising to complete the new
church within two years of pulling down the old, and he granted an
Indulgence to all who should contribute to “so great and pious a work.”
On the 22nd November, 1401, the work of the new church was apparently
far enough advanced for use, for a licence was granted for one year to
celebrate Divine service “in the church or basilica newly erected and
constructed in the cemetery,” and this licence was twice renewed for
the years 1402 and 1403.
The editor of the _Receipts and Expenses in Building Bodmin Church_,
published by the _Camden Society_, says that “there is scarcely a
parish in Cornwall that does not bear testimony to the energy displayed
in church restoration” in the last quarter of the fifteenth century.
He might have added that like activity is manifested at this time in
almost every quarter of England; but certainly Bodmin furnishes us
with an interesting example of the religious energy displayed by the
inhabitants of a mediæval parish. For the year 1469-70 the wardens
account for £196 7_s._ 4½_d._ collected and £194 3_s._ 6½_d._
spent--large sums considering the then value of money, and specially
great when it is remembered that besides this there were the gifts of
material, such as windows, trees, etc., and that the labour of the
workmen was given without other reward than what came from their love
of the work. From the preface of the editor of these accounts we glean
some interesting particulars, all the more interesting as we have no
reason to think that Bodmin was any exception. The accounts “exhibit a
remarkable unanimity in the good work. Every one seems to have given
according to his means and up to his means. Many who gave money gave
labour also; many who could not give money laboured as best they
might, and others gave what they could.” We have gifts of lambs, of a
cow, and of a goose. One woman, in addition to her subscription, sold
her crock for 20_d._; and all found its way into the common treasury.
No age or sex seems to have kept aloof. We find an “hold woman”
contributing 3_s._ 4½_d._, while the maidens in Fore Street and
Bore Street gave subscriptions in addition to the sums received from
the Guild of Virgins in the same streets. The vicar gave his year’s
salary, and the “parish people” who lived out of the town “contributed
19_s._” After an examination of the accounts, the editor attributes the
working up of the zeal of the people to the guilds, and he adds that
“religious life permeated society in the Middle Ages, particularly in
the fifteenth century, through the minor confraternities.” Of these
societies it will be necessary to write at some length later, and here
it will be sufficient to say that almost every inhabitant of Bodmin
appears to have belonged to one or more of these societies. From the
long list of voluntary subscriptions, it appears that all were eager
to have a part in the work of building up their church--a church which
should be a credit to Bodmin. All sorts and conditions of men and women
are entered as contributors on the roll of parishioners, more than 460
in number. Servants appear as well as masters and mistresses, sons and
daughters as well as their fathers and mothers.
The same sort of story is told in every set of parish accounts that
we possess--a story of popular devotion to the material fabric of
the parish church. To take another and later example: At St. Mary’s,
Cambridge, 1515, it was necessary to build a porch and a vestry, and
the people determined to make a voluntary collection for the work each
Sunday during the last six months of the year. At these, from 6_s._
to 8_s._--from £4 to £5 of our money--was gathered each time, and the
building was carried out under the supervision of the churchwardens.
The evidence of mediæval wills is the same as to this very general
interest in church building. For example, Robert Dacres of Beverley, a
weaver, who died in 1498, left £16 for the making of the north aisle of
the church--the parish church in which he had worshipped--provided the
wardens began the work within a year. If they did not do so, then the
money was to be spent on ornamenting the church. So, too, the will of
Robert Pynbey, a chantrey priest of Hornby, shows that, conjointly with
another priest, he had established a chantry, having previously built
the south aisle of Hornby parish church. So, too, in 1490, the sub-dean
of York leaves many legacies to assist in the repairs of the various
churches with which he had been connected. In the same way some of the
chantry certificates of the reign of Edward VI. reveal the fact that
lands had been left to the churchwardens to sell for the purpose of
rebuilding certain parish churches, and that they had been disposed of
to that end.
It must, of course, be remembered that buildings and repairs of this
kind were not lightly undertaken by the wardens without the full
knowledge and consent of the parishioners generally. For example, in
1512-13 it was proposed to do some extensive works at St. Mary-at-Hill
in London, and the entry in the churchwardens’ book is as follows:--
“It is determined that they shall go in hand with the building of the
church at March next. Memorandum: that John Allthorpe and Stephen
Sondyrson have promised to take charge and keep reckoning to pay all
such workmen as shall make the battlements of our church of brick or
stone or lead, as shall be thought best and determined by Mr. Alderman
and the parishioners, and Mr. Parson is to assist them with his good
diligence and wisdom to the best that he can, for the same: and Thomas
Monders is chosen by the said parish to wait upon the said Stephen
and Allthorpe in their absence and at their commandment for the
furtherance of the same work.”
The obligation of all to contribute to the common work of God’s house
was well understood, and it was taught in many books of instructions
popular in those days. For example, in _Dives and Pauper_ the former
is made to declare that “many say, God is in no lond so well served
in holy Church, nor so much worshipped in holy Church, as He is in
this lond of England. For so many fair churches, ne so good aray in
churches, ne so fair service, as many say is in none other lond as it
is in this lond.” _Pauper_ does not deny this, but thinks that it is
perhaps done from a spirit of pomp, “to have a name and worship thereby
in the country, or for envy that one town hath against another.”
_Dives_, with this lead, suggests that it might be better if the money
thus spent “in high churches, in rich vestments, in curious windows,
and in great bells,” were given to the poor. But _Pauper_ urges that
this is just what Judas thought, and declares that it is the common
business of all, rich and poor alike, to look to the beautifying of
God’s house.
By law, then, according to the statute of Archbishop Peckham in 1280,
which remained in force till the Reformation, the parish, broadly
speaking, was bound to find all that pertained to the services--such
as vestments, chalice, missal, processional cross, paschal candle,
etc.--and to keep the fabric and ornaments of the church proper in
repair. In 1305 Archbishop Winchelsey somewhat enlarged the scope of
the parish duties.
[Illustration: THURIBLE, FOUND NEAR PERSHORE]
“For the future,” he says, “we will and ordain that the parishioners
be bound to provide all the following: Legend, Antiphonal, Grayle,
Psalter, Tropary, Ordinale, Missal, Manual, Chalice, the best Vestment
with Chasuble, Dalmatic and Tunicle, and a Cope for the choir with all
their belongings (that is, amice, girdle, maniple and stole, etc.):
the frontal for the High altar, with three cloths; three surplices;
a rochet; the processional cross; a cross to carry to the sick; a
thurible; a lantern; a bell to ring when the Body of Christ is carried
to the sick; a pyx of ivory or silver for the Body of Christ; the
Lenten veil; the Rogation Day banner; the bells with their cords; a
bier to carry the dead upon; the Holy Water vat; the osculatorium for
the Pax; the paschal candlestick; a font with its lock and key; the
images in the church; the image of the patron Saint in the chancel;
the enclosure wall of the cemetery; all repairs of the nave of the
church, interior and exterior; repairs also in regard to the images of
the crucifix and of the saints and to the glazed windows; all repairs
of books and vestments, when such restorations shall be necessary.”
All other repairs, Archbishop Winchelsey adds, “of the chancel and of
other things not the object of special custom or agreement, pertain to
the Rectors or Vicars, and have to be done at their expense.”
[Illustration: PAX]
It did not, however, require any very great rigour on the part
of ecclesiastical authorities to enforce this law. The various
churchwarden accounts and the church inventories prove beyond
dispute that the people of England were only too anxious to maintain
and beautify their parish churches, and that frequently between
neighbouring churches there was a holy rivalry in this labour of love.
To take some examples of this. The inventory of the parish church of
Cranbrook, in Kent, made in 1509, gives the details of all gifts and
donations, in order that the names of the donors and the particulars
of their benefactions might be remembered. The value of the presents
varies very considerably, but nothing apparently was too small to be
noted. Thus we have a monstrance of silver gilt, which the wardens
value at £20, “of Sir Robert Egelyonby’s gift.” In regard to this
donor the inventory says, “This Sir Robert was John Roberts’ priest
thirty years, and he never had other service or benefice.” And it adds,
“The said John Roberts was father to Walter Roberts, Esquire.” Again,
one John Hindley “gave three copes of purple velvet, whereof one was
of velvet upon velvet, with images broidered;” and, _ad perpetuam rei
memoriam_, adds the inventory, “he was grandfather of Gervase Hindley
of Cushorn, and of Thomas (Hindley) of Cranbrook Street.” And again,
to take another example of these entries, it is recorded that the “two
long candlesticks before our Lady’s altar fronted with lions, and a
towel on the rood of our Lady’s chancel,” were the gift of “old moder
Hopper.”
In the same way, the churchwardens’ accounts of Leverton, a parish
situated in the county of Lincoln about 6 miles from Boston, evidence
the same voluntary effort on the part of the people to adorn their
church. In 1492 William Murr left money for work at the Great Crucifix
and to several of the altars. In 1495 a great effort was made to
procure another bell, and we find the expenses for preparing the
bell-chamber, for the carriage of the great bell, and for the hanging
of it by one William Wright, of Benington. All the parish apparently
contributed, and the parson promised 10_s._ 8_d._ towards the expenses;
but when he came to settle, it was found that some one had paid for
him. This was the above-named William Wright; and as the clergyman’s
name was John Wright, perhaps the kindly thought which prompted the
payment came from some bond of relationship. Three years later it
was determined to build the steeple, and the parishioners were eager
for the work. The owner of a neighbouring quarry gave leave to take
whatever stone was required. “A tree was bought at Tombe Wood,” and a
carpenter was engaged for the scaffolding and timber work. The tree was
sawn into boards; lime was purchased to make the mortar, and tubs to
mix it in. Later, another tree was bought and cut up for scaffolding
purposes. All was entirely the work of the parish, and the ordering of
everything was done by the wardens the people had chosen, whilst each
one took a lively and personal interest in the common work.
In 1503 another bell was made, and a deputation of the parish went to
Boston to see it “shot.” The local blacksmith, Richard Messur, made
all the necessary “bolts and locks,” and attended professionally to
see it hung, although the chief responsibility rested upon John Red,
“bellgedor of Boston,” who had the “schotyng” of the bell, and received
£3 6_s._ 8_d._ for his work. At the same time the parish paid for a
Sanctus bell, which was made by the local plumber, and the young men of
the parish formed themselves into a school to be taught how “to toll
the bells.” In the same year a new font was made for the church at
Freeston, about three miles away, and a committee of the parish made
two journeys, one to look at the progress of the work and another to
pass and approve it.
For some few years the expenses were normal; but in 1512 the desire
to possess more bells again came upon the parish. In the same year
the people purchased “a pair of censer chains, when the parson was in
London,” and they renewed the device “for hanging up the Sacrament”
over the altar. In 1516 the bells evidently did not ring well, and a
man was brought over from Boston to set them right. In the same year
there are entered expenses for hanging a lamp and for making “a lectern
in the choir.” The following year the north side of the church was
found to stand in need of repair, and there are expenses for propping
the wall up during the work. This year, also, the parish purchased a
new vestment and a chalice; and in 1519, after the repairs, the bishop
came to reconsecrate the church, and the people paid his fee of 40_s._
for doing so. In 1525 an item of expense is of interest: “To Isabel
Frendyke for marking all the lynen clothis: St. Thomas’ with a mark of
black sylke +, and O. Lady’s with a M.”
[Illustration: BRACKET WITH SUSPENDED DOVE AND COVER]
[Illustration: SACRAMENTAL DOVE]
In 1526 there was a movement to beautify the rood-screen. An “alybaster
man,” otherwise called “Robert Brook the carver,” was procured, and
money was gathered in the town for his support, and some who gave no
money gave cheese. William Franckis, one of the parishioners, died this
year, and left a legacy of 46_s._ 8_d._ to buy “images of alybaster to
be set in ye rood-loft.” There were apparently in all seventeen images,
and “in earneste thereof” the carver was paid a shilling on account;
but when he got to work he found that he could only do sixteen of the
figures for the 46_s._ 8_d._, at 3_s._ 4_d._ each. Apparently, however,
William Franckis had provided for contingencies; he had probably
looked at the vacant niches during the many Sundays he had knelt in
front of the rood, had determined that they must be all filled, and so
had charged his wife Janet to see to it. At any rate, the widow found
the other 3_s._ 4_d._, “that every stage might be filled.”
And so the parish life at Leverton went on without much change. The
ordinary expenses were met out of the ordinary receipts, and when
anything extraordinary was required the people were apparently ever
ready to come forward to provide it. In 1528 there is a note to
say that “John Bell, quondam Rector,” on his deathbed gave to the
wardens the sum of £6 13_s._ 4_d._ to be used upon the church. In
1531 a curious memorandum is worth recording. It is to this effect:
on October 22, Richard Shepperd, the parson, called a meeting of the
parish, to take into consideration the accounts of the late wardens.
The meeting showed their entire confidence in the priest and their
cordial unanimity with him by asking him to appoint the wardens for
the following year, which he did. Also it was shown to the meeting
that by the last will of Walter Bowsche, of Leverton, three acres of
land had been left to the parish for the purpose of being sold, in
order that with the proceeds a new cope might be bought. The will was
apparently destroyed by the wardens, and the money obtained from the
sale had been spent upon the church work in which at the time they
were chiefly interested, namely, the making of bells. The parishioners
determined that they were in conscience bound to rectify this plain
breach of trust, and to make up the money for the new cope. Lastly, in
1540, the parson, John Wright, presented the parish with a suite of
red-purple vestments, and in recording this gift the wardens note in
their account-book, “for the which you shall all specially pray for the
souls of William Wright and Elizabeth his wife,” the father and mother
of the donor, “and other relations, as well them as be alive as them
that be departed to the mercy of God, for whose lives and souls” these
vestments are given “for the honour of God, His most Blessed Mother,
our Lady St. Mary, and all His saints in heaven, and the blessed matron
St. Helen, his patron, to be used at such principal feasts and times as
it shall please the curates so long as they shall last.”
In this way the names of benefactors and the memory of their good deeds
were ever kept alive in the minds of those who benefited by their
gifts. The parish treasury was not looked on as so much stock, the
accumulation of years, of haphazard donations without definite history
or purpose; but every article, vestment, banner, hanging, chalice,
etc., called up some affectionate memory both of the living and the
dead. On high day and feast day, when all that was best and richest in
the parochial treasury was brought forth to deck the walls and statues
and altars, the display of parish ornaments recalled to the minds of
the people assembled within its walls to worship God the memory of good
deeds done by generations of neighbours for the decoration of their
sanctuary.
“The immense treasures in the churches,” writes Dr. Jessopp, “were the
joy and boast of every man and woman and child in England, who, day by
day and week by week, assembled to worship in the old houses of God
which they and their fathers had built, and whose every vestment and
chalice, and candlestick and banner, organ and bells, and pictures
and images, and altar and shrine, they look upon as their own, and
part of their birthright.”
It might reasonably be supposed that this was true only of the greater
churches; but this is not so. What strikes one so much in these parish
accounts of bygone days is the richness of even small, out-of-the-way
village churches. Where we would naturally be inclined to look for
poverty and meanness, there is evidence to the contrary. To take an
example or two. Morebath is a small, uplandish, remote parish of
little importance on the borders of Exmoor; the population, for the
most part, have spent their energies in daily labour to secure the
bare necessaries of life, and riches, at any rate, could never have
been abundant. Morebath may consequently be taken as a fair sample of
an obscure and poor village. For this hamlet we possess full accounts
from the year 1530, and we find that at this time, and in this very
poor, out-of-the-way place, there were no less than eight separate
accounts kept of money intended for the support of different altars of
devotions. For example, we have the “Stores” of the Chapels of our Lady
and St. George, etc., and the Gilds of the young men and maidens of the
parish. All these were kept and managed by the lay-elected officials
of the societies--confraternities, I suppose, we should call them--and
to their credit are entered numerous gifts of money and specific gifts
of value of kind, such as cows, and swarms of bees, etc. Most of them
had their little capital funds invested in cattle and sheep, the rent
of which proved a considerable part of their revenues. In a word, these
accounts furnish abundant and unmistakeable evidence of the active and
intelligent interest in the duty of supporting and adorning their
church on the part of these simple country folk at large. What is true
of this is true of every other similar account to a greater or less
degree, and all these accounts show unmistakeably that the entire
management of these parish funds was in the hands of the people.
Voluntary rates to clear off obligations contracted for the benefit
of the community--such as the purchase of bells, the repair of the
fabric, and even for the making of roads and bridges--were raised by
the wardens. Collections for Peter’s pence, for the support of the
parish clerk, and for every variety of church and local purpose, are
recorded, and the spirit of self-help manifested, on every page of
these accounts. To return to Morebath. In 1528 a complete set of black
vestments was purchased at a cost--considerable in those days--of £6
5_s._, and to help in the common work the vicar gave up certain tithes
in wool that he had been in the habit of receiving. These vestments,
by the way, were only finished and paid for in 1547, just before the
changes under Edward VI. rendered them useless. In 1538 the parish made
a voluntary rate to purchase a new cope, and the general collections
for this purpose produced some £3 6_s._ 8_d._ In 1534 the silver
chalice was stolen, and at once, we are told, “ye yong men and maydens
of ye parysshe dru themselves together, and at ther gyfts and provysyon
they bought in another chalice without any charge of the parish.” Sums
of money, big and small; specific gifts in kind; the stuff or ornaments
needed for vestments, were apparently always forthcoming when needed.
Thus at one time a new cope is suggested, and Anne Tymwell, of Hayne,
gave the churchwardens her “gown and her ring”; Joan Tymwell, a cloak
and a girdle; and Richard Norman, “seven sheep and 3 shillings and 4
pence in money,” towards the cost.
These examples could be multiplied to any extent, but the above will
be sufficient to show the popular working of mediæval parishioners in
support of their church. The same story of local government, popular
interest, and ready self-help, as well as an unmistakeable spirit
of affection for the parish church as theirs--their very own--is
manifested by the people in every account we possess. Every adult of
both sexes had a voice in the system, and the parson was little more in
this regard than chairman of the village meetings, and, as I have more
than once seen him described, “chief parishioner.” In the management
of the fabric, the service, and all things necessary for the due
performance of these, the people were not merely called upon to pay,
but it is clear the diocesan authorities evidently left to the parish
a wise discretion. No doubt the higher ecclesiastical officials could
interfere in theory, but in practice interference was obviously and
wisely rare. It will be necessary in a subsequent chapter to describe
the various methods employed to replenish the parochial exchequer.
There was apparently seldom much difficulty in finding the necessary
money, and it will be of interest to see how it was expended by some
further examples.
CHAPTER III
THE PARISH CHURCH (_continued_)
In the previous chapter the attention of the reader was directed
mainly to the relations of priest and people to their parish church.
The division of obligation for the upkeep of chancel and nave by
general law and custom between the parson and his parishioners has
been stated and explained, and the devotion of the people to the
work of maintaining and beautifying God’s house has been illustrated
by various examples. In this chapter it is proposed to speak of the
various parts of the church itself; and first of _the chancel_, which
was that portion of the sacred edifice between the altar and the nave,
so called because it was separated from the rest of the church by
railings (_cancelli_). Frequently in England there was at this point a
screen supporting a figure of our Lord upon the cross, with images of
Mary and John on either side, and from this called the “Rood Screen.”
The size of the chancel naturally varied according to the importance of
the church, but it may be said to have generally included some stalls
or seats for the assistant clergy and the parish clerks. When, as in
cathedral and conventual churches, this portion was made larger, it
was known as the choir (_chorus_), from the band of singers, who
were originally accommodated in the space between the people in the
nave and the clergy in the _presbyterium_, or were grouped round the
altar, or perhaps more frequently in an apse behind it. In process of
time this body of clergy migrated to more convenient positions in the
choir. As already pointed out, the care of the chancel by law belonged
to the rector or vicar, and a portion of the tithe received by him
was supposed to be devoted to this purpose. The chancel was reserved
entirely for the use of the clergy and for those who ministered at the
altar or took part in the ecclesiastical chant. The prohibition against
lay people sitting in that part of the church was not unfrequently a
cause of difficulty. Simon Langham, of Ely, in his synodical decrees of
1364, prohibits the practice.
[Illustration: ROOD SCREEN AND PULPIT. HABERTON CHURCH]
“Lay people,” he says, “are not to stand or sit amongst the clerks in
the chancel during the celebration of divine service, unless it is
done to show reverence (to some person), or for some other reasonable
and obvious reason; but this is allowed for the patrons of the
churches only.”
A letter on the subject, addressed to one of his clergy by the Bishop
of Coventry and Lichfield, somewhere in the fourteenth century, shows
that it was difficult sometimes to enforce this law.
“Not only the decrees of the holy fathers,” he says, “but the approved
existing customs of the Church order that the place in which the
clerks sing and serve God according to their offices be divided by
screens from that in which the laity devoutly pray. In this way the
nave of the church, which is called the _Sancta Sanctorum_, is alone
to be open to lay people, in order that, in the time of divine
service, clerics be not mixed up with lay people, and more especially
with women, nor have communication with them, for in this way devotion
may easily be diminished.
“Nevertheless,” the bishop continues in this letter, written to a
rector, “in your church report says that some laymen have taken the
seats of the clergy in your chancel and still obstinately refuse to
give them up. If this be so, the names are to be published from the
pulpit, and if after that they still persist, the delinquents are to
be punished according to the statutes.”
[Illustration: ST. MARTIN’S MASS, SHOWING DISPOSITION OF ALTAR
FURNITURE--FOURTEENTH CENTURY]
_The Altar._--The most prominent feature of the chancel, and indeed
of the whole church, as being the very purpose for which the entire
building was erected, and the centre round which all the services were
performed, was the high altar (_summum_, or _majus altare_). “It is
that,” says the gloss upon a constitution of Archbishop Winchelsea,
“to honour which the church is dedicated,” and it is placed in the
choir as in the most solemn part of the building. Originally, if we
may judge from existing illuminations, the altar in English churches
stood a little away from the eastern wall of the church, and had
over it a canopy supported on pillars, between which curtains were
suspended on rods, and drawn during the celebration of the sacred
mysteries. Sometimes, as at West Grinstead, for example, behind the
altar in the wall of the church was an ambry, or cupboard, to contain
the consecrated vessels and the missal, etc., for Mass. Over the altar
was generally suspended some covering or canopy as a manifestation of
the reverence due to the place of Sacrifice, and the churchwardens’
accounts contain frequent mention of expenses to repair and renew
this _cælatura_; for by custom, if not by law, this was done at the
cost of the parish. Under this canopy was suspended a vessel of ivory
or silver, covered by a cone-like tabernacle or by a silken veil,
hanging frequently from a crown of metal, in which was the reserved
Blessed Sacrament. To this ancient practice Becon, in _The Displaying
of the Popish Mass_, alludes, when he says, “Ye go unto the midst of
the altar, and looking up to the pyx, where ye think your God to be,
and making solemn courtesy, like womanly Joan, ye say the _Gloria in
Excelsis_.” And again, “Ye make solemn courtesy to your little idol
that hangeth over the altar.” This was one of the practices which were
done away by the changes under Edward VI., and which the insurgents in
Devon, in their fourth article, demanded should be restored: “We will
have the Sacrament hang over the altar, and there to be worshipped.”
[Illustration: PYX, AND CANOPY, OPEN]
In the wills of the fifteenth century we have instances of rich stuffs
and silks being left for the covering of the Sacred Vessel, and of
gold and jewels for the pix itself. In a will of Elizabeth Bigod,
for instance, is the following item: “To the monastery of Croxton my
chain of gold to make a pyx for the Sacrament of the altar, and there
to be graven about the said pyx this: _Abbot and convent of the same
place, pray for the soul of Dame Elizabeth Bigod_.” In 1496 “Mr. Doctor
Hatclyff, parson,” of St. Mary-at-Hill in London, gave into the hands
of the wardens “a pyx clothe for the high auter, of sipers frenged
with gold, with knoppis of golde and sylke of Spaynesshe makyng.” And
at the same time two other coverings were made for this pyx; one of
“green sylk and red, with knoppis sylver and gylt with corners goyng,
of Mistress Duklyng’s gyffte,” and the other “of red velvelt with three
crowns of laton.” How carefully these presents were preserved may be
judged by an entry of 2_d._ in the accounts of 1513--seventeen years
later--“for mending the pyx cloth that Mistress Duklyng gave the High
Altar.”
[Illustration: PYX CANOPY, CLOSED]
The frontal of the altar made of silk or velvet, or in some instances
of metal with jewels, was by law to be found by the parishioners;
and numerous gifts are recorded of rich stuffs and velvets to vest
the altar with becoming honour. The same in practice may be said
of the other ornaments, which, although perhaps in strict law the
parishioners were not bound to provide, they nevertheless did find
very generally and very generously. The fee payable to the bishop for
the consecration of an altar after rebuilding or reconstruction is
found as an item of expense in the accounts of the parish wardens. So,
too, are the more constant fees, for the blessing of altar cloths and
other altar linen and the hallowing of vestments, paid to the parson
by the parish, as well as the occasional payment to a bishop for the
consecration of the parish chalice.
On the altar between the two big candlesticks stood the crucifix. The
author of _Dives and Pauper_ explains why this should be upon the table
of every altar in the following dialogue:--
“When a priest sayeth his Mass at the altar, commonly there is an
image before him, and commonly it is a crucifix, stone, or tree, or
portrayed”--(that is, of course, in stone, wood, or painting).
“_Dives._--Why more a crucifix than another thing?
“_Pauper._--For every Mass saying is a special mind-making of Christ’s
passion.
“_Dives._--The skyle is good; say forth.
“_Pauper._--Before the image the priest says his Mass and maketh the
highest prayer that Holy Church can desire for salvation of the quick
and the dead; he holds up his hands, he leneth (_i.e._ bows down), he
kneels, and all the worship he can do, he does. Overmore, he offereth
up the highest sacrifice and the best offering that any heart can
devise; that is Christ, God’s Son from Heaven, under the form of bread
and wine. All this worship doth the priest at Mass afore the thing,
and I hope there is no man nor woman so lewd that he will say that the
priest singeth his Mass nor maketh his prayer, nor offers up God’s
Son, Christ Himself, to the thing.
“_Dives._--God forbid.”
On the altar, besides the two big candlesticks and the crucifix, were,
as we learn from some inventories, three smaller candlesticks for low
Mass--two to hold the tapers lighted during the whole service, and one
for that which was ordered to be burning during the Canon, or more
solemn part of the Mass. Most frequently hangings were suspended at
the back and sides of the altar, and this was a favourite form of gift
left to the churches in the wills of ladies in the fifteenth century.
In some accounts and inventories mention is made of an “altar beam,”
evidently used for the purpose of placing candles upon it, and possibly
also images and relics. Whether it was behind the altar, or supported
by columns in front, or serving to bear up the canopy, is not certain.
Canon Scott Robertson, writing about mediæval Folkestone, suggests that
it was at the back of the altar, and that it was somewhat similar to
what Gervase described at Canterbury in the twelfth century.
“At the eastern horns of the altar were two wooden columns, highly
ornamented with gold and silver, which supported a great beam, the
ends of which beam rested upon the capitals of the two pillars. The
beam placed across the church and decorated with gold supported the
Majesty of the Lord, the images of St. Dunstan and St. Elphege, also
seven shrines, decorated with gold and silver and filled with the
relics of many saints. Between the columns stood a cross, gilt, in the
centre of which were sixty transparent crystals in a circle.”
Two other features very general in the south side of every chancel must
be noted--the _sedilia_, or seats for the ministers at the altar, and
the _piscina_, or place where the vessels or cruets of wine and water
were placed for use at Mass, and which was furnished with a basin, from
which the water used to wash the priest’s hands, etc., could drain
away into the earth of the consecrated cemetery. Originally the word
_piscina_ meant, of course, a “fish-pond,” but came to mean, even in
classical writers of the silver age, a basin or bath.
[Illustration: SHAFT PISCINA, TREBOROUGH]
[Illustration: DOUBLE PISCINA, COWLINGE, SUFFOLK]
In the north wall of English churches, not unfrequently there was a
niche for the lamp, which was always kept burning when the Blessed
Sacrament was reserved on the altar. A good example of such a niche was
discovered some years ago during the restoration of the parish church
of West Grinstead. The smoke from the burning lamp in this instance had
been allowed to escape by means of some loose stones leading to the
eaves of the chancel wall, and when discovered the black of the smoke
was still upon the upper stones of the niche.
Lastly, in recalling the chief features of a pre-Reformation chancel,
what is called in the Constitution of Archbishop Winchelsea “the
principal image” must not be forgotten. This image was that of the
saint or saints, to whom the church was dedicated, and it was one of
the ornaments which the parish was specially called upon to provide.
From the wording of the law it might have a place anywhere in the
chancel, but probably it would have stood in a niche on one side of the
altar; or, in the case of there being two patrons, the statues would
have been placed on either side.
Frequent mention is made in wills of the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries of the desire of testators to beautify the chancels of
the churches in which during life they had worshipped. Thus William
Graystoke, of Wakefield, left to the church there in 1508 “a cloth of
Arras work, sometime hanging in his hall”: £10 “to the stalling of
the said church: two pairs of censers, and £20 for new choir books.”
Another testator, Thomas Wood, of Hull, who had been a draper and
sheriff and mayor of his city, on his death bequeathed to Trinity Church
“one of my best beds of Arreys work, upon condition that after my
decease I will that the said bed shall yearly cover my grave at my
_Dirge_ and _Masse_, done in the said Trinity Church with note for
evermore; and also I will that the same bed be hung yearly in the
said church at the feast of St. George the Martyr, among the other
worshipfulle beds; and when the said beds be taken down and delivered,
then I will that the same bed be re-delivered into the vestry and
there to remain with my cope of gold.”
Another testator, in 1504, this time a priest, and the rector of
Lowthorpe in Yorkshire, leaves to the church of Catton a bed-cover
with big figures on it, to lie before the high altar on the chief
feasts; and another bed-cover with the figure of a lion, to lie before
the high altar of Lowthorpe, on all the great festivals.
In some instances legacies are left to beautify the existing altar, to
have paintings made for it, or images carved upon it. In one case a
man leaves a notable sum for those days to have two paintings executed
abroad to adorn the chancel. A very curious bequest was made to the
church of Holy Trinity, Hull, in 1502, by Thomas Golsman, an alderman
of the city. “I leave,” he says, “£10 in honour of the Sacrament, to
make at the high altar angels to descend and ascend to the roof of the
church at the Elevation of the Body and Blood of Christ, as they have
at Lynne;” that is, the angels descend until the end of the singing of
the _Ne nos inducas in tentationem_ of the _Pater noster_, when they
ascend. The chancel was very frequently, if not generally in England,
divided from the nave by the rood with its screen. The _rood_, meaning
a gallows, or cross or crucifix, probably consisted originally of
the crucifix, which stood over the entrance into the choir, while
the screen was the developed low walls which shut in the chancel, in
or on which on either side were the pulpits or ambos, from which the
Epistle and Gospel were chanted in solemn masses. The “rood-beam,” or
“rood-screen,” or “rood-loft,” was probably the introduction of the
twelfth century. In its simplest form of a “beam,” the rood supported a
great crucifix, which was often in the wills of the fifteenth century
and other documents called the _Summus Crucifix_; and generally the two
figures of the Blessed Virgin and St. John were represented as standing
at the foot of the cross, in reference to John xix. 26. Besides
this, lights were frequently placed upon the beam, and Ducange, under
the word _Trabes_, gives an example of a mediæval writer who mentions
fifty candles as placed on the “rood-beam.” In the form of its highest
development the rood took the shape of “the Screen” as seen in many of
our English cathedrals, or in French churches under the name of _Jubé_.
In parish churches in England it was usually called a “rood-loft,”
and took the shape of a light screen, generally of wood, supporting a
wooden gallery, on which was the great crucifix, etc., and to which
access was obtained by a flight of steps, often in one of the piers
of the chancel arch and entered by a door generally from within the
church, but certainly sometimes from without.
[Illustration: OUTSIDE ENTRANCE TO ROOD-LOFT, ST. JOHN’S, WINCHESTER]
The work of carving and ornamenting the rood-lofts in the parish
churches was constant up to the very eve of the Reformation, and
bequests are very frequently met with in the wills of that period for
this end, and to keep up the rood-lights. At St. Mary-at-Hill, for
instance, in 1496-7 there are a set of accounts headed “costes paid
for the pyntyng of the Roode, with karvyng and odir costes also”; and
amongst the items is “to the karvare for makyng of 3 dyadems--and for
mendyng the Roode, the cross, the Mary and John, the crowne of thorn,
with all other fawtes, _Summa_ 10 shillings”; and yet another item
was for the painting and gilding. Towards these and other expenses of
“setlyng up of the Roode” the parishioners contributed in a special
collection. The legacy for beautifying and completing the rood at
Leverton has already been noticed. To the “Rood” in one parish church
a lady in her will leaves “my heart of gold with a diamond in the
midst.” In 1510, at St. Margaret’s, Westminster, £10 was left “towards
making a new rood-loft”; and the work was still apparently going on in
1516, when another donor left £38 for the same object. Lastly, in the
churchwardens’ accounts of St. Edmund’s, Salisbury, there are entered
expenses for the light kept burning before the rood; at which place,
for example, in 1480 the candlemaker was specially employed in making
“the rood-light.” A curious entry in the accounts of the parish church
of St. Petrock’s, Exeter, shows how this light at the rood was kept up:
“Ordinans made by the eight men for gathering to the wax silver for
the light kept before the high cross, which says, that every man and
his wife to the wax shall pay yerely one peny, and every hired servant
that takes wages a half peny, and every other persons at Easter, taking
no wages, a farthing.” In some places, as, for example, Cratfield,
there was a “rowell,” or wheel or corona of candles, kept burning on
feast-days before the rood.
[Illustration: SCREEN. WITHYCOMBE. SOMERSET]
The special destruction of the roods of the English churches in the
early stages of the Reformation under Edward VI., and again under
Elizabeth, causes many to think that the reverence shown to this
representation of our Crucified Lord, probably the most prominent
object visible in the churches, was not only excessive, but mistaken
in its kind. If that were so, it must at least be allowed that the
Church’s teaching on the matter was clear and definite. The author of
_Dives and Pauper_, for example, says that the representations of the
Crucified Christ--
“ben ordeyned to steryn men’s mynds to thinke on Crist’s Incarnation
and on hys passyon and on his levyng ... for oft man is more sterryed
be syght than be heryng or redyng--also thei ben ordeyned to ben a
tokne and a boke to the lewyd people that thei mon redyn in ymagery
and peyntour that clerkes redyn in boke.”
Then, after describing what thoughts the sight of the crucifix should
bring to the mind of the beholder, _Pauper_ goes on--
“In this manner I pray thee read thy boke and fall down to the ground
and thank thy God that would do so much for thee, and worship him
above all things--not the stock, stone nor tree, but him that died
on the tree for thy sin and thy sake: so that thou kneel if thou
wilt afore the image, not to the image; do thy worship afore the
image, afore the thing, not to the thing; make thy prayer afore the
thing, not to the thing, for it seeth thee not, heareth thee not,
understandeth thee not. Make thy offering if thou wilt afore the
thing, but not to the thing; make thy pilgrimage not to the thing nor
for the thing, for it may not help thee, but to him and for him that
the thing representeth. For if thou do it for the thing or to the
thing thou doest idolatry.”
We now pass from the chancel to the body of the church. The nave and
aisles--if there were any--were in a special way under the care of the
wardens chosen by the people. There seems to be little doubt that very
generally, although perhaps not universally, the walls of the parish
churches were painted with subjects illustrating Bible history, the
lives of the saints, or the teaching of the sacramental doctrine of the
Church. In the same way, although of course in a lesser degree, the
windows were often filled with glass stained with pictures conveying
the same lessons to the young and the unlettered. These were, as
they were called, “the books of the poor and the illiterate,” who,
by looking at these representations, could learn the story of God’s
dealings with mankind, and could draw encouragement to strive manfully
in God’s service, from the example of the deeds of God’s chosen
servants.
The work of beautifying the parish churches by wall decorations and
painted windows was the delight of the parishioners themselves, for
it all helped to make their churches objects both of beauty and
interest. To take but one example: the church of St. Neots possesses
many stained-glass windows, placed in their present positions between
1480 and 1530. The inscriptions inserted below the lights testify that
most of them were paid for by individual members of the parish, but in
the case of three it appears that groups of people joined together to
beautify their church. Thus, a Latin label below one says that “the
youths of the parish of St. Neots” erected the window in 1528; a second
says that, the following year, the young maidens emulated the example
of their brothers; and the “mothers” of the parish finished the third
window in 1530.
Besides the high altar in the chancel, there were, from early times,
few churches that did not have one or more, and sometimes many smaller
or side altars. These were dedicated to various saints, and from the
fifteenth century, and even earlier, they were used as chantries or
guild chapels. The priests serving them were supported by the annuity
left by some deceased benefactor to the parish church, or by a stipend
paid by the guild to the priest who acted as its chaplain, or again
by the private generosity of some benefactor. These chapels were
frequently richly decorated, furnished with hangings, and supplied with
their own vestments and altar furniture by their founders or by the
guilds that supported them. To take an example: In 1471 an indenture
or agreement was made between Mr. William Vowelle, master of the town
of Wells, and the two wardens of our Lady’s altar in St. Cuthbert’s
Church, and John Stowell, freemason, for making the front of the Jesse
at the said altar. The work was to cost £40 (probably more than £500
of our money), and the mason was to be paid 40_s._ a week, with £5
to be kept in hand till the completion of the work. To take another
example: at Heydon, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, the south aisle
was dedicated to St. Catherine, and there is an item of expense in the
churchwardens’ accounts showing the existence of a painted altar, an
image of the saint, and a kneeling-desk in front of it.
In the accounts of St. Mary-at-Hill, where there were many such side
chapels, there is an order of the wardens, made in 1518, “that every
priest shall sing with his founder’s vestments, and that their chest
is to be at the altar’s end, next where they sing.” In some of these
small chapels there were statues, before which lights were kept burning
by the devotion of various members, or groups of members, of a parish.
Thus at Henley-on-Thames there were seven chapels and two altars in the
nave, besides the high altar in the chancel. Lights were kept burning
before the rood, the altar of Jesus, and the altar of the Holy Trinity.
In 1482 the warden and the commonalty ordained that the chaplain in the
chapel of the Blessed Virgin Mary say Mass every day at six o’clock,
and the chantry priest of St. Katherine’s chapel at eight o’clock.
In these accounts are entered the receipts and expenses of the Guild
of the Holy Name, and amongst the rest is an entry “for painting
the image of Jesus and gilding it.” The most curious entry, however,
in this book of accounts is that of a gift to secure the perpetual
maintenance of “our Lady’s light.” This was a set of jewels, given to
the churchwardens in 1518 by Lady Jones. They were apparently very
fine, and were to be let out by the wardens for the use of brides at
weddings. The sum charged for the hire was to be 3_s._ 4_d._ for anyone
outside the town, and 20_d._ for any burgess of Henley. Portions of
what is called “the Bridegeer” were let at lower figures; but in one
year the wardens received as much as 46_s._ 6_d._ from this source of
income. At the Reformation the jewels were sold for £10 6_s._ 8_d._
[Illustration: CORONA OF LIGHTS, ST. MARTIN DE TROYES--FIFTEENTH
CENTURY]
The floors of our churches, until late in the fifteenth century, were
not generally so encumbered with pews or sittings, as they became later
on, but were open spaces covered with rushes. The church accounts show
regular expenses for straw, rushes, or, on certain festivals, box and
other green stuff wherewith to cover the pavement. This carpet was
renewed two or three times a year, and one almost shudders to think of
the state of unpleasant dirt revealed on those periodical cleanings.
Some accounts show regular payments made to “the Raker” on these
occasions, whilst the purchase, in 1469, of “three rat-traps” for the
church of St. Michael’s, Cornhill, suggests that the rush covering must
have been a happy hunting-ground for rats, mice, and suchlike vermin.
In some places, however, mats were provided by the wardens, as at
St. Margaret’s, Westminster, where, in 1538, 4_s._ 4_d._ was paid to
provide “matts for the parishioners to kneel on when they reverenced
their Maker.” So too, at St. Mary-at-Hill, London, there was a mat in
the confession pew, and others were provided for the choristers, whilst
we read of the expenditure of 4_d._ “for three mats of wikirs, boght
for prestis and clerkis.”
The provision of fixed seats in parish churches, for the use of the
people generally, was a late introduction. The practice of allowing
seats to be appropriated to individuals was in early days distinctly
discouraged. In 1287, for instance, Bishop Quevil, of Exeter, in his
synodical Constitutions, condemns the practice altogether.
“We have heard,” he says, “that many quarrels have arisen amongst
members of the same parish, two or three of whom have laid claim to
one seat. For the future, no one is to claim any sitting in the church
as his own, with the exception of noble people and the patrons of
churches. Whoever first comes to church to pray, let him take what
place he wishes in which to pray.”
This, of course, refers to a few seats or benches, and not to regular
sittings or pews, which were begun to be set up in the English churches
only in the middle of the fifteenth century, and in some not till late
in the sixteenth. At Bramley church, for example, the wardens did not
begin “to seat” the nave before 1538; at Folkestone some pews were in
existence as early as in 1489; in 1477-8 the wardens of St. Edmund’s
parish church, Salisbury, assigned certain seats to individuals at a
yearly rent of 6_d._; and even before that time, in 1455, seats were
rented at St. Ewen’s church, Bristol. Apparently, once introduced,
the churchwardens soon found out the advantages of being able to
derive income from the pew or seat rents, especially as from some of
the accounts it is evident that the seats were first made with money
obtained at special collections for the purpose, as at St. Mary’s the
Great, Cambridge, in 1518. In the first instance, apparently, the seats
were assigned only to the women-folk, but the great convenience was, no
doubt, quickly realised by all, and the use became general after a very
short time.
[Illustration: BACKLESS BENCHES, CAWSTON, NORFOLK]
[Illustration: FONT, ST. MICHAEL’S, SUTTON BONNINGTON, NOTTS]
One of the most conspicuous objects in every parish church was its
_Font_. This stood at the west end of the church, and frequently in a
place set apart as a baptistery. From the thirteenth century it was
ordered, in the Constitutions of St. Edmund of Canterbury, that every
font must be made of stone or some other durable material, and that it
was to be covered and locked, so as to keep the baptismal water pure,
and prevent any one except the priest from meddling with what had been
consecrated on Easter Eve with Holy Oils and with solemn ceremony.
Great care was enjoined on the clergy to keep the Blessed Sacrament,
the Holy Oils, and the baptismal water safe under lock and key. For,
says the gloss on this ordinance in Lyndwood, keys exist so that things
may be kept securely; and he that is negligent about the keys would
appear to be negligent about what the keys are supposed to guard. By
the ordinary law of the Church a font could only be set up in a parish
church; and in the case of chapels of ease, and other places in a
parochial district, where it was lawful to satisfy other ecclesiastical
obligations, for baptism the child had generally to be brought to the
mother church. The instances in which permission was granted for the
erection of any font in a chapel are very rare, and leave was never
given without the consent of the rector of the parish church. Thus a
grant was made in the fourteenth century to Lord Beauchamp to erect a
font for baptisms in his chapel at Beauchamp, provided that the rector
agreed that it would not harm his parochial rights.
Leading into the church very generally there was a covered approach,
greater or less in size, called the porch, from the Latin _porta_, “a
door or gate.” This was usually at the south side of the church, and
sometimes it was built in two stories, the upper one being used as a
priest’s chamber, with a window looking into the church. In some cases
this chamber was used as a safe repository for the parish property
and muniments. In the lower porch, at the side of the church door,
was the stoup, usually in a stone niche, with a basin to contain the
Holy Water. With this people were taught to cross themselves before
entering God’s house, the water being a symbol of the purity of soul
with which they ought to approach the place where His Majesty dwelt.
The mutilated remains of those niches, destroyed when the practice was
forbidden in the sixteenth century, may still frequently be seen in the
porches of pre-Reformation churches. Sometimes it would seem that there
was attached to the water stoup a sprinkler to be used for the Blessed
Water--as, for example, at Wigtoft, a village church near Boston, in
Lincolnshire, where the churchwardens purchased “a chain of iron with a
Holy Water stick at the south door.”
[Illustration: HOLY WATER STOUP, WOOTTON COURTNEY, SOMERSET]
The land round about the church was also in the custody of the people’s
wardens. It was called the _Cemetery_, from the word _cœmeterium_,
“a dormitory,” it being in the Christian sense the sleeping-place of
the dead who had died in the Lord. It was likewise spoken of as the
“church-yard,” or under the still more happy appellation of “God’s
acre.” From an early period attempts were made from time to time to put
a stop to the practice of holding fairs in the cemetery, or to prevent
anything being sold in the porches of churches or in the precincts.
Bishops prohibited the practice by Constitutions, and imposed all
manner of spiritual penalties for disobedience. By the Synod of Exeter,
in 1267, Bishop Quevil ordered that all the cemeteries in his diocese
should be enclosed securely, and that no animal was to be allowed
pasturage on the grass that grew in them, and even the clergy were
warned of the impropriety of permitting their cattle to graze in “the
holy places, which both civil and canon law ordered to be respected.”
For this reason, the bishop continues, “all church cemeteries must be
guarded from all defilement, both because they are holy (in themselves)
and because they are made holy by the relics of the Saints.”
The reason for this belief in the holy character of cemeteries is set
out clearly in a letter of Bishop Edyndon, in 1348, where he says that
“the Catholic Church spread over the world believes in the
resurrection of the bodies of the dead. These have been sanctified by
the reception of the Sacraments, and are consequently buried, not in
profane places, but in specially enclosed and consecrated cemeteries,
or in churches, where with due reverence they are kept, like the
relics of the Saints, till the day of the resurrection.”
The trees that grew within the precincts of the cemetery were at times
a fertile cause of dispute between the priest and his people. Were they
the property of the parson or of the parish? And could they be cut down
at the will of either? In the thirteenth century, when the charge of
looking after the churchyards was regarded as weighing chiefly on the
clergy, it was considered that to repair the church--either chancel or
nave--the trees growing in them might be cut. Otherwise, as they had
been planted for the purpose of protecting the churches from damage by
gales, they were to be left to grow and carry out the end for which
they had been placed there. Archbishop Peckham had previously laid
down the law that, although the duty of keeping the enclosure of the
cemetery rested upon the parishioners, what grew upon holy ground
being holy, the clergy had the right to regard the grass and trees
and all that grew in the cemetery as rightly belonging to them. In
cutting anything, however, the archbishop warned the clergy to remember
that these things were intended to ornament and protect God’s house,
and that nothing should be cut without reason. However the question
of the ownership of the trees growing in churchyards may have been
regarded by the parishioners, there are evidences to show that they
did not hesitate to adorn their burial-places with trees and shrubs
when needed. At St. Mary’s, Stutterton, for instance, in 1487, the
churchwardens purchased seven score of plants from one John Folle, of
Kyrton, and paid for “expenses of settyng of ye plants, 16_d._”
The sacred character of consecrated cemeteries was recognized by
the law. Bracton says that “they are free and absolute from all
subjection, as a sacred thing, which is only amongst the goods of
God--whatever is dedicated and consecrated to God with rites and by
the pontiffs, never to return afterward to any private uses.” And
amongst these he names “cemeteries dedicated, whether the dead are
buried therein or not, because if those places have once been dedicated
and consecrated to God, they ought not to be converted again to human
uses.” Indeed, “even if the dead are buried there without the place
having been dedicated or consecrated, it will still be a sacred place.”
The ceremony by which the mediæval churchyard was consecrated was
performed by the bishop of the diocese, or some other bishop, by his
authority and in his name. The fees were to be paid by the parish; and
the parochial accounts give examples of this expense having been borne
by the wardens. Thus at Yatton, in 1486, the churchyard was greatly
enlarged, and, when the new wall had been constructed, the bishop came
over and consecrated the ground. The parish entertained him and his
ministers at dinner, and paid the episcopal fee, which was 33_s._ 4_d._
One of the expenses of this ceremony, noted down by the churchwardens,
was, “We paid the old friar that was come to sing for the parish, 8_d._”
In the churchyards thus dedicated to God were set up stone crosses or
crucifixes, as a testimony to the faith and the hope in the merits of
Christ’s death, of those who lay there waiting for the resurrection.
The utmost reverence for these sacred places was ever enjoined upon
all. Children, according to Myrc, were to be well instructed on this
point--
“Also wyth-ynn chyrche and seyntwary
Do rygt thus as I the say.
Songe and cry and such fare
For to stynt thou schalt not spare;
Castynge of axtre and eke of ston
Sofere hem there to use non;
Bal and bares and such play
Out of chyrcheyorde put away.”
And the penitent soul was to inquire of itself whether it had done its
duty in ever offering a prayer for the dead when passing through a
cemetery--
“Hast thou I-come by chyrcheyorde
And for ye dead I-prayed no worde?”
In concluding this brief survey of the material parts of
pre-Reformation churches, it is impossible not mentally to contrast
the picture of these sacred places, as revealed in the warden’s
accounts, the church inventories and other documents, with the bare
and unfurnished buildings they became after what Dr. Jessopp has
called “the great pillage.” Even the poorest and most secluded village
sanctuary was in the early times overflowing with wealth and objects of
beauty, which loving hands had gathered to adorn God’s house, and to
make it, as far as their means would allow, the brightest spot in their
little world, and beyond doubt the pride of all their simple, true
hearts. This is no picture of our imagination, but sober reality, for
the details can be all pieced together from the records which survive.
Just as a shattered stained-glass window may with care be put together
again, and may help us to understand something of what it must have
been in the glory of its completeness, so the fragments of the story
of the past, which can be gathered together after the destruction
and decay of the past centuries, are capable of giving some true,
though perhaps poor, idea of the town and village parish churches in
pre-Reformation days. “There is not a parish church in the Kingdom,”
writes a Venetian traveller of England in 1500,--“there is not a
parish church in the Kingdom so mean as not to possess crucifixes,
candlesticks, censers, patens, and cups of silver.” What is most
remarkable about the documents that have come down to us, and which
are mere chance survivals amid the general wreck, is the consistent
story they tell of the universal and intelligent interest taken by the
people of every parish as a whole in beautifying and supporting their
churches. In a real and true sense, which may be perhaps strange to
us in these later times, the parish church was _their_ church. Their
life, as will be seen in subsequent chapters, really centred round it,
and they one and all were intimately connected with its management.
The building was their care and their pride; the articles of furniture
and plate, the vestments and banners and hangings, all had their own
well-remembered story, and were regarded, as in truth they were, as the
property of every man, woman, and child of the particular village or
district.
CHAPTER IV
THE PARISH CLERGY
The head of every parish in pre-Reformation days was the priest. He
might be a _rector_ or _vicar_, according to his position in regard to
the benefice; but in either case he was the resident ecclesiastical
head of the parochial district. The word “parson,” in the sense of
a dignified personage--“the person of the place”--was, in certain
foreign countries, applied in the eleventh century, in its Latin form
of _persona_, to any one holding the parochial cure of souls. English
legal writers, such as Coke and Blackstone, have stated the civil law
signification of the word as that of any “person” by whom the property
of God, the Patron Saint, the church or parish was held, and who could
sue or be sued at law in respect to this property. In ecclesiastical
language, at any rate in England, according to Lyndwood, the word
“parson” was synonymous with “rector.”
Besides the rector or parson and the vicar, several other classes of
clergy were frequently to be met with in mediæval parishes. Such were
curates, chantry priests, chaplains, stipendiary priests, and sometimes
even deacons and subdeacons. About each of these and their duties and
obligations it will be necessary to speak in turn, but before doing so
something may usefully be said about the clergy generally, and about
their education, obligations, and method of life. From the earliest
times the clerical profession was open to all ranks and classes of
the people. Possibly, and even probably, the English landlords of
the fourteenth or fifteenth centuries were only too glad to bestow
livings, of which they had the right of presentation, upon younger
sons or relations, who had been educated with this end in view. But
in those same centuries there is ample evidence that the ranks of the
clergy were recruited from the middle classes, and even from the sons
of serfs, who had to obtain their overlord’s leave and pay a fine to
him for putting their children to school, and thus taking them from the
land to which they were by birth _adscripti_, or bound. Mr. Thorold
Rogers has given instances of the exaction of these fines for sending
sons to school. In one example 13_s._ 4_d._ was paid for leave to put
an eldest son _ad scholas_ with a view of his taking orders; in another
5_s._ was paid, in 1335, for a similar permission for a younger son.
In the diocesan registers, also, episcopal dispensations _de defectu
natalium_ are frequent, and show that a not inconsiderable number of
the English clergy sprang from the class of “natives” of the soil, or
serfs, upon whom the lord of the manor had a claim. Examples also could
be given of a bishop allowing his “native” (_nativus meus_) permission
to take sacred orders and to hold ecclesiastical benefices--acts of
kindness on the bishops’ part shown to some promising son of one of the
serfs of the episcopal domains.
The practice of introducing into the body of the clergy even those
sprung from the lower ranks of life was not altogether popular, and
the author of _The Vision of Piers Plowman_ has left a record of the
existing prejudice on the subject. He thinks that “bondmen and beggars’
children belong to labour, and should serve lords’ sons,” and that
things are much amiss when every cobbler sends “his son to schole” and
“each beggar’s brat” learns his book, “so that beggar’s brat a Bishop
that worthen among the peers of the land prese to sytten ... and his
sire a sowter (cobbler) y-soiled with grees, his teeth with toyling of
leather battered as a saw.”
In 1406 the more liberal spirit of encouraging learning wherever it
was found to exist asserted itself, and by a statute of the English
Parliament of that date it was enacted that “every man or woman, of
what state or condition he be, shall be free to set their son or
daughter to take learning at any school that pleaseth them within the
realm.” That such schools existed in the past in greater numbers than
has been thought likely does not now appear open to doubt. Besides
the teaching to be obtained at the cathedrals, religious houses, and
well-known grammar schools, the foundations of education were furnished
by numerous other smaller places, taught by priests up and down the
country. This is proved by the numbers of students who came up to
the Universities for their higher work at the age of fourteen or so,
after they had been prepared elsewhere, and the numbers of whom fell
off almost to a vanishing point on the destruction of the religious
houses, and the demolition of the smaller schools, under cover of the
Act for dissolving Chantries, etc. In the Chantry certificates mention
is made of numerous parochial schools taught by priests, who also
served the parish in other ways, or by clerks supported by money left
for the purpose of giving free education. These proofs appear on the
face of the certificates, in order that a plea might be made for their
exemption from the operation of the general dissolution of chantries
and guilds; it is needless to add that the plea had no effect. In
some places, too, as for example at Morpeth and Alnwick and Durham,
a second school of music, called the “song school,” was kept. At the
latter place a chantry was founded in the cathedral for two priests
“to pray and to keep free schools, one of grammar and one of song, in
the city of Durham, for all manner of children that should repair to
the said schools, and also to distribute yearly alms to poor people.”
At Lavenham, in Suffolk, a priest was paid by the parish to “teach the
children of the town” and to act as “secondary” to the curate.
By the will of Archbishop Rotheram, in 1500, the foundation of a
college in his native place was laid. In this will the archbishop,
after saying that he had been born at Rotheram, gives an interesting
biographical note about his early years--
“To this place a teacher of grammar coming, by what chance, but I
believe it was God’s grace that brought him thither, taught me and
other youths, by which others with me attained to higher (paths of
life). Wherefore wishing to show my gratitude to our Saviour, and to
celebrate the cause of my (success in life), and lest I should seem to
be ungrateful and forgetful of God’s benefits and from whence I came,
I have determined in the first place to establish there a teacher of
grammar to instruct all without charge.”
Archbishop Rotheram’s case was not singular. Bishop Latimer, in one of
his sermons before Edward VI., gives an account of his early life.
“My father,” he says, “was a yeoman, and had no lands of his own; only
he had a farm of three or four pounds by the year at the uttermost,
and hereupon he tilled so much as kept half a dozen men. He had a walk
for a hundred sheep, and my mother milked thirty kine. He was able and
did find the king a harness and his horse. I remember that I buckled
on his harness when he went to Blackheath field. He kept me to school,
or else I had not been able to have preached before the King’s majesty
now.”
An ordinance of the diocese of Exeter in the synod of Bishop Quevil
seems also to suggest that schools of some kind existed in most cities
and towns. He had always understood, he says, that the benefice of the
“Holy Water bearer” was in the beginning instituted in order to give
poor clerks something to help them to school, “that they might become
more fit and prepared for higher posts.” In this belief the bishop
directs that in all churches, not more than ten miles distant from the
schools of the cities and towns of his diocese, the “benefices” of the
“Holy Water bearers” should always be held by scholars.
Seager’s _Schoole of Virtue_, although written in Queen Mary’s reign,
refers, no doubt, to a previous state of things. The author seems to
take for granted that attendance at school is a very common, if not
the ordinary thing, and that it is in the power of most youths to make
their future by study and perseverance.
“Experience doth teche, and shewe to the playne
That many to honour, by learninge attayne
That were of byrthe but simple and bace
Such is the goodness of God’s speciale grace.
For he that to honour by vertue doth ryse
Is doubly happy, and counted more wyse.”
The writer then warns the boys he is addressing to behave themselves
when leaving school. On their way home they would do well to walk two
and two, and “not in heaps, like a swarm of bees.” Another educator,
Old Symon, in his “Lesson of Wysedom for all maner chyldryn,” urges
diligence and plodding upon his pupils, with a jest as to possible
positions to which the student may in time attain.
“And lerne as faste as thou can,
For our byshop is an old man,
And therfor thou must lerne faste
If thou wilt be byshop when he is past.”
It is unnecessary to pursue the subject of the education of the
parochial clergy further. After his elementary education had been
received in the schools, the student’s preparation for the reception of
Orders was continued and completed at the Universities. The ordinary
course here was lengthy. Grammar, which included Latin and literature
with rhetoric and logic, occupied four years. The student was then
admitted a Bachelor. In the case of clerical students this was followed
by seven years’ training before the Bachelor’s degree in Theology was
bestowed, and only after a further three years’ study of the Bible,
and after the candidate had lectured at least on some one book of the
Scriptures, was he considered to have earned his degree of Doctor in
Theology.
[Illustration: ACOLYTHES]
[Illustration: SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM]
The age when the candidate for Orders could be promoted to the various
steps leading to the priesthood was settled by law and custom. A
boy of seven, if he showed signs of having a vocation to the sacred
ministry, might be made a cleric by receiving the tonsure. In “rare
instances” and under special circumstances he might then receive an
ecclesiastical benefice, and so get the wherewith to live while he was
studying to fulfil the duties attached to his office. In the course
of the next seven years the youth could be given the minor Orders of
“doorkeeper,” “lector,” “exorcist,” and “acolyte.” He would then be at
least fourteen years of age, and thus at the time of life at which in
those days students were supposed to begin their University course. At
eighteen the candidate to the priesthood might be ordained Subdeacon;
at twenty he could take the diaconate, and at twenty-five be ordained
Priest. It will be noticed that these ages in some way generally
correspond to the academic degrees. Going to the University at
fourteen, a clerical student might have, and no doubt frequently had,
received the various steps of minor Orders. Four years of the liberal
arts enabled him at eighteen to take his degree of Bachelor of Arts.
It was at this age that he could be ordained Subdeacon. Then seven
years of theological study enabled him to become a Bachelor of Divinity
at twenty-five, at which time he was of the right age to receive the
priesthood. This was the regular course; but without doubt the greater
number of candidates for the ministry did not pass through all the
schools. Some, no doubt, after entering sacred Orders, became attached
to cathedrals, colleges of priests, and even parochial churches, where,
in the midst of a more or less active life, they prepared themselves
for further ecclesiastical advancement. Wherever they were, however,
they would have to prove themselves to be sufficiently lettered
and of good life before they would be accepted for Ordination, and
their examination and proof was put as a conscientious duty upon the
bishop before he determined upon accepting and ordaining them. For
a candidate to become a cleric there was not much difficulty, if he
showed sufficient diligence and good-will, and the various minor Orders
were also bestowed without any serious question as to the likelihood
of failure, etc., in the ecclesiastical career. With the subdiaconate,
however, this was in no sense the case, and no one was allowed to be
ordained without what was called a “title,” that is, he was required to
show that he had been nominated to a benefice sufficient for his proper
maintenance, or had been given a responsible guarantee of adequate
support for one in sacred Orders. In the case of sons of well-to-do
parents the bishop might accept the possession of sufficient property
as guarantee under the title of “patrimony.” Moreover, the Episcopal
Registers show for what large numbers of clergy the religious houses
became surety for a fitting maintenance in the event of failure of
health or withdrawal of ecclesiastical resources. A certificate of
Orders received was to be furnished by the bishop’s official, the fee
for each of which was settled in the English Church by Archbishop
Stratford at 6_d._
The entry into the clerical state, with its duties and privileges, was
outwardly manifested by the tonsure and _corona_. The former, as the
gloss upon the Constitution of Cardinal Otho declares, was the shaving
of a circle on the crown of the cleric as a sign of the laying aside
all desire for temporal advantages and avaricious thoughts. “And,”
says the author, “in the proper tonsure of clerics, I believe, is
included the shaving of beards, which, contrary to the law, many modern
clerks grow with great care.” The _corona_, although apparently in
time it became synonymous with the “tonsure,” in its original English
meaning certainly signified the close crop of the hair, on the upper
part of the head, as “a sign that clerics sought only the Kingdom of
God.” One curious instance of a bishop giving the tonsure in a parish
church may be mentioned. In 1336, Bishop Grandisson, of Exeter, went
to St. Buryan to terminate a serious quarrel between the inhabitants
and himself, in which they had practically rejected his jurisdiction.
He was attended by many of the gentry and the clergy, one of whom
translated the bishop’s address into Cornish, for those who only
understood that language. The parish then renewed their obedience “in
English, French, and Cornish,” and the bishop absolved them from the
penalties of their disobedience. After which, says the record, “he gave
the first tonsure, or sign of the clerical character, to many who were
natives of that parish.”
[Illustration: SACRAMENT OF ORDINATION]
The dress of clerics was legislated for by the Constitutions of
Cardinal Ottoboni, to which subsequent reference was constantly made
by the English bishops. Thus the same Bishop Grandisson, in 1342,
issued a monition to his clergy on the subject, in which he speaks of
the sensible legislation of the cardinal. All clerics were directed
to follow this law as to their dress; it was not to be so long or so
short as to be an object of ridicule or remark. The cassock or clerical
coat in length was to be well above the ankles (_ultra tibiarum medium
attingentes_), and the hair was to be cut so that it could not be
parted and showed the ears plainly. In this way, by their _corona_
and tonsure, and by the exterior form of their dress, they might be
clearly known and distinguished from laymen. Cardinal Otho likewise
enforced the regulation about clerical dress, and declared that some of
the English clergy looked rather like soldiers than priests, an opinion
which the author of the gloss endorsed with the saying that it is not
only in their dress that some offend, but in their open-mouthed laugh
(_risus dentium_) and their general gait. The cardinal directs that all
clerics shall use their outer dress closed, and not open like a cloak,
and this in particular in churches, in meetings of the clergy, and by
all parish priests, always and everywhere in their parishes.
The status of the English clergy, generally from a legal standpoint, is
thus described in Pollock and Maitland’s _History of English Law_--
“Taken individually, every ordained clerk has as such a peculiar
legal status; he is subject to special rules of ecclesiastical law
and to special rules of temporal law.... Every layman, unless he were
a Jew, was subject to ecclesiastical law; it regulated many affairs
of his life, marriages, divorces, testaments, intestate succession;
it would try him and punish him for various offences, for adultery,
fornication, defamation; it would constrain him to pay tithes and
other similar dues; in the last resort it could excommunicate him, and
then the State would come to its aid.... The ordained clerk was within
many rules of ecclesiastical law which did not affect the layman,
and it had a tighter hold over him, since it could suspend him from
office, deprive him of benefice, and degrade him from his Orders.”
So much about the clergy generally and about the way in which they
entered the clerical state and mounted the various steps of the minor
and sacred Orders, until their reception of the sacred priesthood
brought them into the close relations which existed between the
clergyman and his flock. It is now time to turn to the consideration
of the various kinds of parochial clergy. And first (1) The _Rector_
or _Parson_ was appointed to his benefice by the patron of the living,
with the approval of the bishop, by whose order he was also inducted
or instituted. Among the _Harleian Charters_ in the British Museum is
an original deed of induction to a living, which sets out the ceremony
and prescribes the feast to follow. The benefice after his induction
became the rector’s freehold. In the language of Bracton, the position
of a rector differed legally from that of a vicar, inasmuch as he could
sue and be sued for the property or benefice he held, which he did in
the name of the Church. And to this “only rectors of parochial churches
are entitled, who have been instituted as parsons by bishops and by
ordinaries.” It was the duty of the archdeacon, either personally or
by his official, on the certificate of the bishop, to put the rector
into possession of his benefice. The fee to be paid, according to the
Constitution of Archbishop Stratford, was not to exceed 40_d._ when the
archdeacon came in person, “which sum is sufficient for the expenses of
four persons and their horses;” or two shillings when the official came
with two or three horses.
Previously to this, however, and before issuing his letters of
induction, the bishop was bound to satisfy himself that the priest
presented to fill the rectory had the necessary qualities of a good
pastor of souls. In the Constitution of Cardinal Otho on this point,
after recalling the saying of St. Gregory that “the guidance of souls
is the art of arts,” the cardinal goes on to say that “our Catholic
art” requires that there “should be one priest in one church,” and that
he should be a fitting teacher, “by his holy life, his learning, and
his teaching,” and upon this last quality Lyndwood notes that he should
be able to adapt his instructions to his audience. “Whilst to the wise
and learned he may speak of high and profound things, to the simple
and those of lesser mental capacity he should preach plainly about few
things, and those that are useful.” As to these qualifications the
bishop had to satisfy himself within two months after the presentation,
in order that the parish should not be kept vacant longer than was
necessary. Besides the above-named qualities, by ordinary law of the
English Church, any one presented as a rector was bound to be a cleric;
to be at least five and twenty years old; to be commendable in his
life and knowledge; and if not a priest, he was at least to be fit
to receive the priesthood within a year. As a rule each rectory, or
benefice for a rector, had but a single rector; but there are instances
where in one place, at Leverton, for example, there were two parsons
appointed to one church, with two houses, with the tithes divided, and,
of course, with the obligations distinct. In a few cases, as at Darley
Dale, Derbyshire, there were three or even more rectors for the one
parish.
In the first chapter it has been pointed out what were the tithes
payable to the rector of a parish, and that they frequently brought in
a considerable sum of money. On the other hand, there were many and
constant claims made upon the revenues of the parochial church, and
this not accidentally or casually, but by custom and almost by law. The
repair of the chancel and the upkeep of choir-books and other things
necessary for the services, which were not found by the people, had to
be met out of the “fourth part” of the tithe, which was supposed to be
devoted to such purposes. Another constant claim was the relief of the
poor, strangers, and wayfarers, called “hospitality.” This, according
to Lyndwood, was well understood and practised in England, where the
churches, to meet those calls, were better endowed than they were
abroad.
This claim, there can be no doubt, was fully accepted and carried
out. If a rector was for some reason or other non-resident, by law
his charity or “hospitality” had to be administered either by the
curate who served the church, or by a resident proctor appointed for
the purpose. In acknowledgment of this obligation, in the wills of
the period we find the clergy directing money to be paid by their
executors to the poor of the parishes which they had served. Thus
William Sheffield, Dean of York, who died in 1496, after arranging that
this distribution should be made in proportion to the time during which
he had held each benefice, adds: “For the goods of the Church are the
property of the poor and therefore the conscience is heavily burdened
in the spending of the goods of the Church. For badly spending them
Jesus have mercy.”
In the record of the visitation of churches in the diocese of Exeter,
in 1440, there are many references to the “hospitality” kept by the
clergy. In one instance the rector is praised for having rebuilt his
chancel and added two good rooms to the rectory, one for himself
and one for the purposes of hospitality. In another there is a note
“that, from time immemorial to the day of the present rector, great
hospitality had been maintained, and the goods of the church had been
made the property of the sick and the poor,” but that this had ceased.
It seems to us, indeed, almost strange in these days to see what was
the teaching of the mediæval Church about the claims of the poor, and
to remember that this was not the doctrine of some rhetorical and
irresponsible preacher, but of such a man of law and order as was
the great Canonist Lyndwood. There can be no doubt that the proceeds
of ecclesiastical benefices were recognised in the Constitutions of
legates and archbishops as being in fact, as well as in theory, the
_eleemosynæ_, the _spes pauperum_--the alms and the hope of the poor.
Those ecclesiastics who consumed the revenues of their cures on other
than necessary and fitting purposes were declared to be “defrauders of
the rights of God’s poor,” and “thieves of Christian alms intended for
them;” whilst the English canonists and legal professors, who glossed
these provisions of the Church law, gravely discussed the ways in which
the poor of a parish could vindicate their right--_right_, they call
it--to a share in the ecclesiastical revenues of their Church.
This “jus pauperum,” which is set forth in such a textbook of English
law as Lyndwood’s _Provinciale_, is naturally put forth more clearly
and forcibly in a work intended for popular instruction, such as
_Dives et Pauper_. “To them that have the benefices and goods of Holy
Church,” writes the author, “it belonged principally to give alms and
to have the cure of poor people.” To him who squanders the alms of the
altar on luxury and useless show the poor man may justly point and
say, “It is ours that you so spend in pomp and vanity!... That thou
keepest for thyself of the altar passing the honest needful living, it
is raveny, it is theft, it is sacrilege.” From the earliest days of
English Christianity the care of the helpless poor was regarded as an
obligation incumbent on all; and in 1342 Archbishop Stratford, dealing
with _appropriations_, or the assignment of ecclesiastical revenue to
the support of some religious house or college, ordered that a portion
of the tithe should always be set apart for the relief of the poor,
because, as Bishop Stubbs has pointed out, in England, from the days of
King Ethelred, “a third part of the tithe” which belonged to the Church
was the acknowledged birthright of the poorer members of Christ’s
flock. All the old diocesan registers of English sees afford like
instances of specific injunctions as to bestowing part of the income of
the benefice on the poor when appropriations were granted.
Besides the regular revenues from parochial tithes, the rector had
other sources of income. Such, for instance, were the offerings made
for various services rendered to individuals, as baptisms, marriages,
churching of women, and funerals. An offering, also, for a special Mass
said or sung for a particular person or intention, was made to the
rector if he officiated, which by the Constitution of Lambeth he could
only do when the special service did not interfere with the regular
duties of his cure. In 1259-60 Bishop Bronescombe settled the Mass fee
at “one penny;” and in the churchwardens’ accounts of Dover there is an
entry, in 1536, of a payment “for ten Masses with their offeryng pens,
which was for Grace’s obit,” 4_s._ 4_d._ In law these offerings were
known as “memorial pence” (_denarii memoriales_), or “earnest pence”
(_denarii perquisiti_), because, on account of this “retaining fee,”
the priest engaged to offer Mass on a special day.
Various “oblations,” moreover, were apparently made to the parson
regularly. At Folkestone, for example, according to the _Valor
Ecclesiasticus_, an oblation of 5_d._ was made to the priest each
Sunday. Lyndwood lays down, as the law regarding regular oblations
“made on Sundays and Festivals, etc.,” that they belong to the priest
who had the cure of souls, “whose duty it was to pray for the sins
of the people.” Other priests, who might be attached to the church,
had no claims upon them except by agreement, as those who make the
offering are not their parishioners. Oblations of this kind were not
always voluntary, and they could be recovered for the clergyman by the
bishop, as, for instance, when they were made according to a previous
agreement, or promise, or in any special need of the Church, as when
the minister had not sufficient to support himself properly; or when
such offering was made according to established custom.
Bishop Quevil, in the Synod of Exeter, states what were the
long-established customs in the English Church as to regular oblations.
Every adult parishioner above the age of fourteen years had to make an
offering four times a year, at Christmas and Easter, on the patronal
feast, and on the dedication feast of his parish church, or, according
to custom, on All Saints’ day. The bishop also desired that the people
of his diocese should be persuaded to bring Pentecost offerings also to
their parish churches, or at least to send them to their parsons. To
induce them so to do, special indulgences granted to all benefactors
of churches were to be published on each of the three Sundays before
the feast, and all such offerings were to be taken to the place where
the Whit-Sunday processions assemble. Bishop Rigaud de Asserio, of
Winchester, in 1321, makes the same claim as to the regular four
payments, but puts the age at eighteen, and even then only claims the
oblation as a right in the case of those possessing some movables of
their own. In some instances, apparently, a portion of the offerings
made for any special object was by custom given to the priest for his
own use, as a well-understood tax. This, for example, was the case at
St. Augustine’s church at Hedon, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, where
in the fifteenth century “a third of the oblations to the Holy Cross
was given to the Vicar.”
The rectory house, which was situated near to the church, would no
doubt in these days be considered very poor. A living-room and a
bedroom, with perhaps a room in which to exercise “hospitality,” with
some necessary offices and a kitchen, were all that, as far as can be
ascertained, constituted the dwelling-place of the parochial priest.
“Religious feelings,” says Dr. Rock, “sweetened the homeliness of
everyday life.” Over the parlour chimneypiece in the vicarage house
at Besthorpe, Norfolk, built by Sir Thomas Downyng, priest, are these
lines--
“All you that sitt by thys fire warmyng
Pray for the sowle of Sir Jhon Downyng.”
Probably, in some place attached to the rectory there would have been
some kind of enclosure, or priest’s garden. Occasionally, mention is
made of the existence of one, as, for instance, in the visitation of
churches of the archdeaconry of Norwich, in 1363, where in one case
the rector is said to have in his use a house and garden “next to
the rectory on the north side.” But this seems to have been really
parish property, as it is recorded that it “was sufficient to find all
the candles in the church.” Sometimes, no doubt, the priests’ houses
would have been larger than they usually appear to have been from the
examples that survive or the records which are available. Thus in the
early fifteenth century the Bishop of Lincoln granted a priest in his
diocese permission to have a private oratory in his rectory house, on
condition that the oratory was fittingly adorned, and that no other
rite but Mass was celebrated in it. The Holy Sacrifice might be offered
there either by him or any other priest in his presence.
[Illustration: RECTORY, WEST DEAN, SUSSEX]
A curious example of a poor rector being received as a boarder into
a religious house is recorded in the register of Bishop Stapledon.
The parish of Charles, in Devonshire, was, in 1317, found to be
burdened with great debt, and its state evidently almost bankrupt.
With the consent of the bishop, the rector, Walter de Wolfe, called
upon the Prior of Pilton to help him out of his difficulties. It was
consequently agreed that the best way was for the rector to come and
live in the priory, and for the prior to farm the revenues of the
parish for five years, during which time he should serve it, and with
the savings pay off the debts of the rector.
The _Vicar_ in many ways had the same work and responsibility as a
rector in regard to all parochial duties. He was legally, however, as
the word implies, one who took the place, or was the deputy of the
rector. Although a rector, actually in possession of a parish and
engaged in working it, could with permission and for adequate reasons
appoint a vicar as _locum tenens_, in England almost universally by a
“vicar” was meant the priest appointed to work a parish in the case
of an impropriated living. The nature of these benefices has already
been explained, and it is unnecessary here to do more than recall the
fact, that although the greater tithes went to the monastery, college,
or dignity to which the living had been impropriated, the appointed
vicar had his portion of tithe, the oblations made to the church he
served, and a pension settled by the episcopal authority. These, at any
rate, with the rest of the income, afforded adequate support, with, in
addition, sufficient to enable him to do the repairs of the chancel,
which, in the case of the rectorial benefice, were incumbent on the
parson.
This position of vicars only requires to be illustrated here very
briefly. In 1322, Bishop Rigaud de Asserio, of Winchester, settled the
means of support and the duties of the Vicar of Romsey, as between him
and the abbess and convent. Every day the vicar was to have from the
abbey two corrodies equal to what two nuns had. He was to take the
tithes on flax, on hemp, and on fifteen other products of the soil; he
was to have all funeral dues, and all legacies of dead people, except
those specifically left for the repair, etc., of chancel; he was also
to have certain lands to work for his own purposes, and to take all
oblations made in the church. On the other hand, besides his ordinary
duties, he was to pay all ecclesiastical dues and taxes; to find all
books and ornaments of the church, and to repair and maintain them, as
well also as to keep up and repair the entire chancel of the church. To
take another case: the monks of Glastonbury, the impropriators of the
parish of Doulting, in Somerset, received £18 a year in the sixteenth
century from their portion of the impropriated tithe. Their vicar at
the same time, with the duty of looking after the annexed chapels, took
£43.
The mode of institution for a vicar was very much that of a rector. He
was appointed by the impropriator of the living, acting as patron, and
he had to receive the assent of the bishop of the diocese. By a statute
of Cardinal Otho, confirming the practice of the English Church, “no
one could be appointed to a vicarage unless he were a priest, or a
deacon ready to be ordained a priest at the next _Quatuor temporum_
ordination.” On his appointment, he had to surrender every other
ecclesiastical benefice, and to take an oath that he would reside
continually in his vicarage, so that any absence beyond the space of
three weeks was unlawful.
The above legislation, of course, regarded only what were known as
_perpetual vicars_--those, namely, that were appointed to impropriated
livings with a tenure of office similar to that of rectors. The author
of the gloss on the Constitution of Otho notes that in England there
were really four kinds of vicars, or four classes of priests who were
accounted or known as vicars: (1) those who for a stipend took the
cures of rectors, or of perpetual vicars, temporarily, and at the will
of those who engaged them--these did not require the licence of the
bishop, unless under special diocesan law; (2) those sent by the Pope,
etc., to certain parts of the world were called vicars; (3) vicars
appointed by the bishops, and known as _vicars-general_; and (4) the
_perpetual vicars_ of churches, instituted to the cure of souls by the
bishop, and by his licence installed--these were most properly called
vicars.
It is evident, from what is set out in the _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, that
the vicar proper, if he found it necessary, had to provide help in the
way of a curate. In this there was no distinction between a rector and
a vicar; and it is obvious that, where this was required, provision for
it had been made in the arrangement which had been come to in the first
instance between the impropriators and the bishop; or that arrangement
had subsequently been modified to enable the vicar to meet the expense
of extra help.
_Curates._--Next in importance among the parochial clergy come the
assistant priests, known as _Curates_ (_curati_), or those entrusted
with the cure of souls. They are called in canon law _vice curati_, or
_capellani_, who “administer the sacraments, not in their own name,
but in the name of another”--that is, in the name of the rector or
perpetual vicar. They were also, as previously pointed out, in England
occasionally called vicars, in the sense of taking the place of the
rector, etc.
Every curate by law was to receive from the rector or vicar who
employed him a fixed and sufficient salary, and all manner of bargains
as to payment or contracting out of obligations were prohibited.
Thus in the acts of the Synod of Ely, in 1364, Bishop Simon Langham
says, “We strictly prohibit any rector from making a bargain with his
(assistant) priest of this kind: that besides his fixed stipend he may
take offerings for anniversary Masses, etc., since such a bargain is a
clear indication that the fixed stipend is too small”--and to make it
up, these fees are looked for, and the parish Masses may be neglected.
In fact, by the Constitution of Archbishop Courtney, in 1391, the
curates were to receive none of the oblations, fees, or offerings made
in a parish, for services for which they received a sufficient payment
from those who employed them.
According to the same Constitution, the curate was admitted to his
office by the rector or vicar on any Sunday or Feast-day before the
parishioners at the parochial mass. After the Gospel of the Mass the
curate took an oath to respect the above conditions as to fees, etc.,
in the parish church or any chapel of ease in which he celebrated Mass,
and declared that he would neither stir up nor take part in any quarrel
or misunderstanding between the rector and his people; but that, on the
contrary, he would ever strive to preserve both peace and love between
them.
A curate thus instituted could only hear the confessions of
parishioners in the church or chapel where he said Mass according to
the leave and permission he had received; he was bound to be present
in the choir of the parish church, vested in a surplice, at Matins,
High Mass, Vespers, and other Divine service at the appointed hours on
Sundays and festivals, together with the other ministers of the church,
who were legally bound to assist at and increase the numbers of those
present at these services, and not to remain in the nave or walk about
in the cemetery, etc. On Sundays and Feast-days, when a funeral Mass
had to be said, the curate, unless with leave of his rector, was not
allowed to begin this Mass until after the Gospel of the High Mass.
In their private lives curates were warned always to act as priests,
and not to frequent taverns, plays, or illicit spectacles. In dress
and carriage they were ever to uphold the credit of the ecclesiastical
state, and not to bring scandal upon their rectors or upon themselves.
Sometimes the need of extra assistance in the parish was felt by the
people, and very frequently they contributed the sum necessary for a
curate’s sufficient stipend. At times the people even appealed to the
bishop to force the parson to seek additional help. Thus in the diocese
of London, in the fourteenth century, there is recorded the complaints
of the inhabitants of a parish that their vicar would not allow the
services of a priest for whom they had paid, and that thus “they were
deprived of daily Mass, and other divine service, with the sacraments
and sacramentals.”
At times, indeed, the need of an assistant in a parish was so obvious
that the bishop felt bound to interfere in order to secure the
appointment. Thus Bishop Rigaud de Asserio, of Winchester, in 1323,
appointed a curate to the Vicar of Twyford, “who was suffering from
an incurable disease” and unable to do the work of his parish. In the
same way, in 1313-14, Bishop Stapledon, of Exeter, appointed a curate
coadjutor to the Vicar of St. Neots, who was found to be suffering
from leprosy. The vicar was to have a certain stipend; was to keep the
best room in the parsonage, with the adjoining parts of the house,
except the hall. The door between this room and the vicar’s chamber was
to be built up, and the newly appointed curate was to have the whole
administration of the vicarage.
The _Chantry Priest_.--Next in order of importance among the priests of
a mediæval parish come the clergymen serving any chantry attached to
the church. These chantry chapels were, as is well known, very numerous
in pre-Reformation days, particularly in towns; but it has hitherto not
been sufficiently recognised that the priests serving them in any way
helped in parochial work. This is simply because the purpose, for which
those adjuncts to parish churches existed, has not been understood.
We have been taught to believe that a “chantry” only meant a place
(chapel or other locality) where Masses were offered for the repose of
the soul of the donor, and other specified benefactors. No doubt there
were such chantries existing, but to imagine that they were even the
rule is wholly to mistake the purpose of such foundations. Speaking
broadly, the chantry priest was an assistant priest of the parish, or,
as we should nowadays say, curate of the parish, who was supported by
the foundation fund of the benefactors for that purpose, and indeed
not unfrequently even by the contributions of the inhabitants. For
the most part their _raison d’être_ was to look after the poor of the
parish, to visit the sick, and to assist in the functions of the parish
church. Moreover, connected with these chantries were very commonly
what were called “obits.” These were not, as we have been asked to
believe, mere money payments to the priest for some anniversary
services; but they were for the most part money left quite as much for
annual alms to the poor, as for the celebration of any anniversary
offices. Let us take a few examples. In the city of Nottingham there
were two chantries connected with the parish church of St. Mary’s, that
of Our Lady, and that called Amyas Chantry. The former, we are told,
was founded “to maintain the services and to be an aid to the vicar,
and partly to succour the poor;” the latter for the priest to assist in
“God’s service,” and to pray for William Amyas, the founder. When the
commissioners in the first year of Edward VI. came to inquire into the
possessions of these chantries, they were asked by the people of the
place to note that in this parish there were “1400 houseling people,
and that the vicar there had no other priest to help but the above two
chantry priests.” It is not necessary to say that these foundations
were not spared on this account; for within two years the property,
upon which these two priests were supported, had been sold to two
speculators in suchlike parcels of land--John Howe and John Broxholme.
Then, again, in the parish of St. Nicholas, at Nottingham, we find from
the returns of the Commissioners that the members of the “Guild of the
Virgin” contributed to the support of an extra priest. In the parish
there were “more than 200 houseling people,” and as the parish living
was very poor, there was no other priest to look after them but this
one, John Chester, who was paid by the Guild. The King’s officials,
however, did not hesitate on this account to confiscate the property.
It is useless to multiply instances of this kind, some hundreds of
which might be given in the county of Nottingham alone. It may be
interesting, however, to take one or two examples of “obits” in this
part of England. In the parish of South Wheatley there were parish
lands let out to farm, which produced 18_d._ a year; say from £1 to
£1 4_s._ of our money. Of this sum, 1_s._ was for the poor and 6_d._
for church lights; that is, two-thirds, or, say, 16_s._ of our money,
was for the relief of the distressed. So in the parish of Tuxford the
church “obit” lands produced £1 5_s._ 4_d._, or more than £16 a year;
of this 16_s._ 4_d._ was intended for the poor, and 9_s._ for the
church expenses. It is almost unnecessary to add that the Crown took
the whole sum; that intended for the poor, as well as that used for
the support of the ecclesiastical services. Neither can it be held, I
fear, that the robbery of the poor was accidental and unpremeditated.
It has been frequently asserted, of course, that although grave
injury was undoubtedly done to the poor and needy in this way, it was
altogether inevitable, since the money thus intended for them was so
inextricably bound up with property to which religious obligations
(now declared to be superstitious and illegal) were attached, that the
whole passed together into the royal exchequer. It would be well if it
could be shown that this spoliation of the sick and needy by the Crown
of England was accidental and unpremeditated; but there are the hard
facts which cannot be got over. The documents prove unmistakably that
the attention of the officials was drawn to the claims of the poor,
and that in every such case these claims were disregarded, and a plain
intimation was given that the Crown deliberately intended to take even
the pittance of the poor.
The _Stipendiary_ priest differed in little from the curate, except
that he was engaged and paid for some special service and not for
the general purposes of a parish like a curate. They (_i.e._ the
stipendiaries) live, says Lyndwood, upon the stipend paid them for
their service, and have no fixed title or claim upon the church where
they offer up their Mass, except that they are paid for doing so for
a year or other fixed time. They had no claim whatever to fees or
oblations, and indeed, they were prohibited from receiving them.
Like all other priests dwelling within the bounds of a parish,
Stipendiaries were bound to attend in the choir of the parochial
church in surplice at Matins, High Mass, Vespers, and at all other
public Divine service. They were to be ready to read the lessons, sing
in the psalms and other chants, or take any other part, according to
the disposition of the rector or vicar. Some entries in the Chantry
certificates show that this duty was understood and fulfilled to the
end. At Costessy, in Norfolk, to take but one example, a stipendiary
priest was paid £6 by King’s College, Cambridge, to offer Mass in a
Free chapel, for the convenience of the people at a distance, and the
certificate adds, “and the said priest hath always used to help the
curate sing divine service upon holy day in the parish church.”
_Chaplain_ was a name given apparently to two sets of priests. The
priest employed, by a nobleman or other person of distinction, to
say Mass in a private chapel, and the priest who served a chapel of
ease, established for the convenience of the people in a much extended
parish, were both designated chaplains. Of the first, it is only
necessary to say, that so far at the parish was concerned, it could
claim the presence and help of even all private chaplains at the
ordinary services of the church.
The public chaplains, or those who served in chapels of ease, were
of greater importance in parochial work. The necessity for these
chapelries appears clearly in the “Chantry certificates,” under colour
of the act for suppressing which most of the chapels were destroyed.
Thus to take a few examples: The “Free chapel” of Tylne, in the parish
of Hayton, in Cumberland, had been founded by a priest named Robert
Poore. It had “always been accustomed to have all manner of Sacraments
ministered by the chaplain there to the inhabitants of North and
South Tylne. By reason that many times in the year such influence
of waters and snow doth abound so much within the said hamlets, the
inhabitants thereof can by no means resort unto their parish church
of Hayton, being two miles distant from the said chapel, neither for
christening, burying, or other rites.” And again at South Leverton, in
Nottinghamshire, there was a “chapel of Cottam, a mile distant from
the parish church,” at which eighty people received the Sacraments.
And, adds the “certificate,” “many times the waters being up the people
cannot come to their parish church.”
Such chapels were built at the cost of the people of the parish, and
under careful restrictions and conditions laid down by the bishop
of the diocese. An excellent instance of this is to be found in the
register of Bishop Brantyngham, of Exeter, where it is recorded that
in 1372 he dedicated a chapel of ease at Dartmouth. Up to this time
Dartmouth was in the parish of Townstall, which was a vicarage, the
benefice being appropriated to the Premonstratensian Abbey of Torre.
The people living at Dartmouth, failing to obtain permission to have a
chapel, proceeded to build one without leave of the abbey or of their
vicar. After considerable difficulty, and upon the intervention of
the bishop, it was allowed that the people on the seashore, many of
them old and infirm and women, frequently were unable to get to their
parish church, especially in stormy winter weather. For this reason
the erection of the chapel with a baptistery and cemetery was finally
allowed, and they were permitted to find a chaplain to serve it, who
was to be licensed from year to year, and admitted by the Vicar of
Townstall. In the same way Bishop Stafford allowed the establishment
of a chapel at Kingsbridge, in Devon, in 1414. The people who used the
chapel had to maintain it, and even the chancel, as well as all the
necessary books and ornaments. They were not charged, however, with the
payment of their own chaplain, or with the provision of bread and wine
for the Blessed Eucharist, which fell upon the rector of the parish of
Churston. Burials of the dead had up to this time taken place at the
mother church; but this, in view of circumstances adduced, the bishop
thought unreasonable. On the Feast of the Dedication of the parish
church, however, every adult was bound to attend there at the service
and to make an offering. Certain other dues also were ordered to be
paid in acknowledgment of the ties of the chapel to the mother church.
At one place, a chaplain was employed by the rector to say Mass for the
convenience of the people in a chapel attached to a house some distance
from the parish church. In another chapel of ease, a parishioner left
money for a foundation of three Masses weekly for the people; and at
Tatton, near Bristol, the churchwardens, in 1506, were paying “Sir
Richard York, chapel priest,” 27_s._ 4_d._ a quarter for his services.
Besides the above-named priests, all more or less connected with
the working of a mediæval parish, it was ordered that, wherever the
means of the place would allow it, there should be always a deacon
and subdeacon to assist in the due celebration of the Divine service.
Chance references in accounts and other documents seem to show that
they were often so employed. In one set of churchwardens’ accounts
there is a curious entry of receipt from a deacon, who pays for damage
done to certain vestments at the time of his ordination. In another,
a collection was made from the parishioners for the support of the
deacon; and in a book of directions for clerics, it is laid down as
part of the deacon’s office to bring the pyx containing the Blessed
Sacrament from behind the altar, where it had been hanging, and to
place it on the table of the altar for the priest to communicate the
faithful.
CHAPTER V
THE PARISH OFFICIALS
If the parish priest, rector, or vicar was undoubtedly the admitted
centre of life in the district, the father of his people and the pastor
of his flock, neither on his part nor on that of the parishioners
was there any mistake about the rights and duties of the people
to the parish church and towards parish matters generally. Within
well-defined limits, the parish, which included both parson and people,
managed its own affairs. Every adult of both sexes had a voice in
this self-government, and, as Bishop Hobhouse has pointed out, in
pre-Reformation days a wise freedom in the management of the fabric
of the church and its accessories seemed to have been left to the
parish by the diocesan authorities. They--the people--encouraged by
every means in their power, and indeed frequently initiated, those
manifestations of zeal for beautifying God’s house which form so
remarkable a feature in the architectural history of the fifteenth and
early sixteenth centuries. Moreover, it is impossible to turn over the
church accounts of that period which have come down to us, without
acknowledging that the love of the people for their parish churches
was supported and intensified by the feeling that it was their work,
and that upon each of them in conscience lay the duty of assisting to
maintain the sanctuary, where, according to their strong and simple
faith, God dwelt in their midst, and of helping to keep up within this
holy place the round of prayers and praise and sacrifice.
This common purpose of all within a parish was in those days not left
to be carried out by chance or by mere individual effort; it was
highly and intelligently organised to secure the co-operation and the
continual contributions necessary for successfully carrying out the
work. For this end certain officials were chosen by popular election as
the people’s representatives, others were appointed in various ways and
others, again, were employed as their services were required.
_The Churchwardens._--The representatives of the people in all
parochial work were their wardens, or the churchwardens, as they are
generally called. Pollock and Maitland, in their _History of English
Law_, do not think that there were real churchwardens before the
thirteenth century. Previously, however, it is admitted that certain
burdens as to the support of the church had been placed upon the
parishioners as a body. “In the thirteenth century,” for example, “the
general custom of the Church of England, swerving in this from the _jus
commune_ of the Catholic Church, cast the burden of repairing the nave
of the parish church, and providing the main part of the ecclesiastical
apparatus, not upon the parson, but upon the parishioners.” Whether
this burden implied any corporate organisation of the parishioners or
any parish meeting seems doubtful. But “no doubt the occasional nature
of the charge almost compels the rector or the archdeacon to deal with
the parishioners as a body, to call them together, and endeavour to
persuade them that a wall is crumbling or a new missal is wanting.”
Still, whatever their origin, the churchwardens are already in
existence in the thirteenth century; they are then dealt with as the
legal representatives of the parishioners, and they “present themselves
as claimants for property and possession.” To the authors of the
_History of English Law_ their existence is due to the natural outcome
of the responsibility placed upon the people. “If the parishioners are
compelled to provide precious books, robes, vessels, etc., they will
naturally desire to have their say about the custody of these articles;
parsons have been known to sell the church plate.”
In the fifteenth century the churchwardens were chosen annually in
a parish meeting at which, no doubt, the rector or vicar would have
presided; all adult members of the parish having a voice in the
election. At this meeting the outgoing wardens would give an account
of their stewardship, and hand over the custody of the common funds
and common property to their successors. At the church of St. Mary
the Great, Cambridge, for instance, a special parish meeting was held
in the church, “at the altar of the doom in the south aisle,” for the
settlement of an account “between Thomas Curle, plumber, on the one
part, and the parishioners.” But this was quite out of the ordinary,
and as a rule, once the guardians or wardens were elected, all the
parish business was transacted by them. In this same church the wardens
were chosen, apparently, on Easter Monday, and the method of election
was somewhat curious. The outgoing churchwardens first each nominated
one parishioner, who conjointly chose eight persons to elect the
officers of the coming year. In this case at Cambridge, besides the two
churchwardens, there were at the same time elected for the parish two
wardens of the lights at the Sepulchre and Crucifix; two guardians of
the Jesus Mass; two parish auditors; and “two custodians of the keys of
the chest, called the chantry hutch, in which are all the charters and
deeds relating to the Chantry.”
The number of churchwardens was, apparently by the fifteenth century,
fixed to two, although for special purposes, as in the above instance,
other wardens were appointed. In the accounts of St. Edmund and St.
Thomas at Salisbury, there were at first three _supervisores fabricæ_;
in 1486 two “gardiani ecclesiæ” were charged with beginning the
reparation of the church at Easter, “and not to wait till winter.” With
these were two junior wardens, “custodians of the goods and ornaments
of the church.” Apparently, in times when considerable work was going
on, one or more additional wardens were appointed to give advice and
share responsibility; and once, at least, in the time of some great
repairs to the fabric, the parish meeting stood adjourned from Friday
to Friday until the works were finished. In 1510 two wardens were
appointed, and it is curious to note that one held the purse, and the
other, who did not, became his surety. At St. Mary-at-Hill, in London,
the name for the official churchwardens was, apparently, the “Wardeyns
of the godes, rents, and werks;” or, the “Wardens of the godes,
ornaments, werkes, livelihood, and rents, etc.”
Although the wardens were usually chosen from the men of a parish,
there are examples to show that this need not necessarily be the case.
Thus the accounts of St. Petrock’s, Exeter, show that in 1428 a woman,
named Beatrice Braye, was people’s warden; and in the same way, in
1496-7, “Dame Isabel Norton” held the office at Yatton, in Somerset.
Bishop Hobhouse, in his interesting volume of _Churchwardens’
Accounts_, has well summed up the duties and functions of these parish
wardens, which were very varied. They might have both farming and
trading to do in fulfilment of their office, as well as disposing
of various gifts which were made by the parishioners in kind. They
also might have the unpleasant duty of presenting parishioners to the
archdeacon’s court for moral delinquencies. Besides this, if there
was building or decorating to be done in the church or on buildings
belonging to the parish, such as their common house, the wardens had to
find the ways and means, and to supervise the work. They had to attend
at Visitations, and if the church or the cemetery or a new chalice,
etc., had to be consecrated, they had to arrange with the bishop and
find the necessary fees. They had to see that the money due to the
common purse from all the various sources was paid, and that, in the
event of some extra work or engagement being undertaken by the parish,
some method of raising the necessary funds was projected and carried
out. At the same time, the wardens had no civil functions to perform
until late in the reign of Henry VIII. In 1349, indeed, the Statute of
Labourers names them, and tries to place upon them the duty of helping
labourers to return to their homes; but the attempt came to nothing,
and in the accounts printed by Bishop Hobhouse, the earliest entry
for anything not strictly concerned with their parochial office is in
1512-13, when the wardens of Yatton “were charged with repairing the
sluices and scouring the Yeo.”
[Illustration: HOUSELING CLOTH FOR HOLY COMMUNION]
It was frequently no light task that the churchwardens undertook
for their fellow-parishioners, for the parish possessions were
considerable, and comprised all kinds of property--lands, houses,
flocks and herds, cows, and even hives of bees. These were, what may
be termed, the capital of the parish, which was constantly being added
to by the generosity of generations of pious benefactors. Then, over
and besides the chancel, which was the freehold of the parson, the
body of the church and other buildings, together with the churchyard
and its enclosure, and generally, if not always, the common church
house, were then under the special and absolute control of the people’s
wardens. If the law forced the people of a parish to find fitting and
suitable ornaments and vestments, it equally gave them the control
of the ecclesiastical furniture, etc., of their church. Their chosen
representatives were the guardians of the jewels and plate, of the
ornaments and hangings, of the vestments and tapestries, which were
regarded, as in very truth they were, as the property of every soul in
the particular village or district in which the church was situated.
It is no exaggeration to say that the parish church was in Catholic
times the care and business of all. Its welfare was the concern of the
people at large, and it took its natural place in their daily lives.
Was there, say, building to be done, repairs to be effected, a new peal
of bells to be procured, organs to be mended, new plate to be bought,
and the like, it was the parish as a corporate body that decided the
matter, arranged the details, and provided for the payment. At times,
let us say when a new vestment was in question, the whole parish might
be called to sit in council at the church house on this matter of
common interest, and discuss the cost, the stuff, and the make.
The parish wardens had their duties, also, towards their poorer
brethren in the district. In more than one instance they were guardians
of a common chest, out of which temporary loans could be obtained by
needy parishioners to enable them to tide over pressing difficulties.
These loans were secured by pledges and the additional surety of other
parishioners. No interest, however, was charged for the use of the
money, and in cases where the pledge had to be sold to recover the
original sum, anything over and above was returned to the borrower. In
other ways, too, the poorer parishioners were assisted by the corporate
property of the parish. The stock managed by the wardens “were,” says
one of the early English reformers, “in some towns (_i.e._ townships
and villages) six, some eight, and some a dozen kine, given unto the
stock for the relief of the poor, and used in some such wise that the
poor ‘cottingers,’ which could make any provision for fodder, had the
milk for a very small hire; and then the number of the stock reserved
(that is, of course, the original number being maintained), all manner
of vailes (or profits), besides both the hire of the milk and the
prices of the young veals and old fat wares, was disposed to the relief
of the poor.”[A]
To take one or two specific instances. The churchwardens’ accounts
for St. Dunstan’s, Canterbury, show how the funds required for the
repair of the parish church and other parish work were obtained. The
people of the district were banded together in brotherhoods; those that
were authorised to beg wore “scutchons,” or badges, and the special
fraternity was called the “schaft.” They received anything that was
given to them, in kind as well as in money; and the record speaks of
malt, barley, wheat, cows, and sheep belonging to the parish. One
Nicholas Reugge left, by will, four cows to be let at a rent, the
proceeds to pay for the “paschal light,” which the parishioners had to
find, and for which they were to be freed from all further obligation.
These cows, valued at 10_s._ each, were leased out at 2_s._ apiece.
In 1521 a farmer, John Richardson, hired from the wardens twenty-five
sheep, and at the same time the people’s representatives accounted
for receipts from lambs, wool, etc. Everything goes to show, says
Mr. Cowper, the sympathetic editor of these accounts, “what life and
activity there was in the little parish, which never wanted willing
men to devote their time and influence to the management of their own
affairs.” The churchwardens’ accounts generally, it may be added,
tell the same story, and show, as one writer has well said, “the
simple-mindedness of the population, their cheerful contentment,
the general absence of fraud, their religious feelings, and general
goodwill towards each other.”
According to early legislation, the churchwardens had to present their
settlement in writing to a committee of the parishioners, who were to
be appointed by the parsons for the purpose, and these accounts were
to be handed to the archdeacons at the time of their visitations.
Thus Bishop Quevil, in the Synod of Exeter, in 1287, declares that
the inventories of all that belonged to the church should be made
yearly by the wardens and produced before the rectors, vicars, or, at
any rate, the parish chaplains, and that such property should on no
account be used for other purposes. Also, that whatever was given for a
definite purpose, such as a light in the church, etc., must not be used
for anything else.
Property, in greater or lesser amounts, houses, lands, cattle, and
rich hangings, etc., were constantly being left by will, or otherwise
given to the churchwardens as trustees for the parish. The Yarmouth
wills of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries contain bequests to
particular altars and lights in St. Nicholas’s Church. Jeffery Wyth,
for example, in 1302 gave 5_s._ “for maintaining a lamp continually
burning before the great crucifix.” Richard Fastalfe, by his will made
in 1356, gave a tenement to St. Mary’s light in the same church. In
1490 Thomas Pound directed his executors “to supply a lamp with oil
burning day and night,” and five wax candles standing “about the lamp
before the Most Holy, or High Altar, to the honour of the Sacrament in
the time of Divine Service, as the said Thomas in his lifetime had used
to do, to continue for ever.” In the same way, in 1486, Rose Wrytell,
a parishioner of St. Mary-at-Hill, left to the churchwardens, as
trustees, certain houses to find the stipend for a chantry priest, who
was to be appointed by the parishioners, and who was to assist at all
the services.
The churchwardens frequently had considerable responsibility in regard
to their office, and if they did not get more frequently into serious
financial difficulties than they apparently did, it was owing to the
cordial way in which the parish generally supported their endeavours
to serve them. In St. Peter Cheap, in London, the churchwardens held
a good deal of property as trustees. They embarked on “making and
finishing our vestry” in 1475, and the names of those contributing to
the work cover a whole page. We find them repairing and decorating
chantries; employing a priest to serve; making the priests’ chambers in
Cock Alley, where, apparently, the parson and the chantry priests dwelt
in common; engaging in organ making and paying for a player and for
“the readers of the Passion” on Palm Sunday. The “Morrow Mass” priest,
whose duty it was to say Mass every day at six o’clock, was paid for by
the wardens on behalf of the parish, as well as a clerk to serve his
Mass.
In some documents connected with Exeter diocese in the fifteenth
century, some of the personal difficulties in which the wardens might
be involved are set out. In one case, where a good deal of repair to
the fabric of the church was necessary, the churchwardens excused
themselves on the plea that the tenants of certain houses belonging
to the parish, upon the rents of which they had relied, had not paid
for some time; in a second case, the excuse made was that parishioners
who had promised help had not given it; in a third, the parishioners
had agreed to a rate to repair the church and bell-tower, and many had
not paid according to their promises. In every case the bishop, whilst
warning the people to keep their obligations, pointed out that the
“guardians,” or churchwardens, were personally responsible.
Again, there are many examples, in the accounts of the various
parishes, which show that the people considered the parochial goods
held by the churchwardens, even when they were in the shape of
vestments and plate, as their own property. They exchanged them, lent
them, and sold them--always, of course, for the benefit of the church.
In the wardens’ accounts of St. Mary the Great, Cambridge, there are
several examples of this open dealing with church goods. One instance
of this kind of dealing is worth recording. In the parish of Yatton,
Somerset, on the eve of the Reformation--about 1520, say--a difficulty,
to which reference has already been made, arose as to the repair of
certain sluices to keep back the winter floods. To make a long story
short--in the end, the parishioners were ordered to make good the
defect. It meant money; and the wardens’ accounts show that they had
been spending money generously on the church. It was consequently
decided that to raise the necessary cash they should sell a piece of
silver church plate, which had been purchased some years before by the
common contributions of the faithful. The instance furnishes a supreme
example of the way in which the people of a mediæval parish regarded
the property of God’s house as their own.
_Parish Clerk, or Holy-water Bearer (Aquæbajularius)._--Second only in
importance to the churchwardens was the _parish clerk_, or, as he was
frequently called from one of his chief duties, the “water-bearer.”
Originally, as the name “clerk” implies, he was a cleric, and his
office was considered to be a regular ecclesiastical benefice. In the
fourteenth century the clerk was married, but one such was fined for
the offence in a visitation in that century in the Salisbury diocese.
In process of time, however, owing to the scarcity of clerics, the
office was often held by a married layman.
The English law as to this official was laid down in the Constitution
of Archbishop Boniface of Savoy, in the thirteenth century. The
benefice was, according to this, to be bestowed “upon poor clerks.”
And as there had been many disputes about the bestowal of the office,
the archbishop decreed that henceforward “the rectors and vicars (of
parish churches), who know better than parishioners those that are fit
for the office, shall institute such clerics in these benefices as
they know in their hearts can and will properly serve in the Divine
offices (of the church) and will obey their directions.” Upon which law
Lyndwood remarks, that it is always the privilege of the Ecclesiastical
Superior to appoint his inferiors in his own church, and that it is no
part of the right of any patron; which, in this instance, may be taken
to include the parishioners, who were supposed to find the salary. In
the manuscript accounts of the wardens of St. Botulph’s, Aldersgate
Street, a payment of £4 a year was made to the clerk, and this sum was
specially collected for the purpose.
[Illustration: HOLY WATER CLERK]
A note “of clerke wage owing” in the accounts of St. Michael’s in
Bedwardine, Worcestershire, makes it appear that there, ordinarily,
each householder paid 1_d._ a quarter for the clerk, although one
person, to whom is prefixed the title of “Mr.”, evidently pointing
to a man of “class,” paid a shilling each time. St. Mary-at-Hill, in
London, paid its clerk at the rate of £6 13_s._ 4_d._ a year, and he
also received certain offerings at obits, etc., kept in the church.
The regular wage was specially, although apparently not very regularly,
collected by the wardens.
[Illustration: BLESSING OF FOOD BY HOLY WATER CLERK]
The actual payment of the clerk was sometimes a difficulty; and
Archbishop Boniface anticipates this possibility by asserting the
English custom of the parish paying for his services. It was in
consequence of this, he says, that parishioners had asserted their
right to make the appointment. He directs that, should there be
objection made to this payment by any parish, the people should be
compelled to do their plain duty by ecclesiastical censures. On the
other hand, Archbishop Peckham seems to have thought it reasonable that
those who paid the money should elect to the office, and held that the
parishioners ought to appoint the parish clerks to their offices.
Lyndwood speaks of a praiseworthy English custom, according to which
every father of a family made an offering on the Sundays to the cleric
who brought the holy water to him; and that at Christmas the officer
should have from each household a loaf, at Easter a certain number
of eggs, and in the autumn so much of the harvesting. It may also be
taken as an established custom that each quarter of the year the clerk
received a sum of money for his support levied upon the entire parish.
A curious entry in the accounts of the church of St. Mary the Great at
Cambridge, shows a payment made by the parish “in reward to a yong man
that should have bene parish clerk,” suggesting that the churchwardens
wanted him, but the rector made another appointment.
The Synod of Exeter, in 1287, so frequently referred to in regard to
the laws and customs of the English Church, declares that, according to
tradition, “the benefice of the Blessed Water” was at first instituted
to help poor clerks, whilst they were studying and thus fitting
themselves for higher dignities. To this end Bishop Quevil directs,
as already pointed out, that in all churches not more than ten miles
distant from any school of a city or town, this purpose should be borne
in mind, and the office given to a poor scholar to help him whilst
at his studies. For this reason, no doubt, there are instances in
which the bishop insisted upon the removal of a parish clerk who had
married, and upon the appointment of another, whose intention it was to
proceed to the reception of Holy Orders. At the same time it is quite
clear that the bishop did not lightly interfere in the appointment
or removal of any parish clerk. In one case, on November 13, 1386,
Bishop Brantyngham refused to take cognisance of the appeal of the
parishioners of Pont, in Cornwall, who, not being content with the
appointment made by their rector, had caused the churchwardens to elect
another. This the bishop altogether condemned, declaring that by law
the appointment was in the hands of the rector.
Besides attending to carry the Holy Water on the Sundays, the clerk,
according to the directions given in the tract called “Cilium Oculi
Sacerdotis,” was to assist the priest at the altar, and to read the
Epistle at Mass, when there was no deacon or subdeacon. He might be
vested in an alb when he performed this service. It was part of his
duty also to teach the children of the parish, not only their prayers,
creed, and religion, but also their letters and “whatever singing they
ought to know.”
A curious document relating to the “Offesse of dekyn” in Trinity
Church, Coventry, in 1462, has been printed more than once, and lately
for the _Henry Bradshaw Society_, by Dr. Wickham Legg. Some of the
duties there set forth for the “deacon” show that in this case he acted
as parish clerk, and his duties are most minutely described. He was to
open the door of the church at six o’clock, and have the chalice and
missal ready for the priest who said “the Trinity Mass:” on all feasts
he was to ring for Matins, and bring in the books for the south side
of the choir: he was to ring for the High Mass, and then sing in the
choir, and again at three o’clock for Evensong. He shall be rector in
the choir on the south side: he is to see that there is a deacon to
read the Gospel at every High Mass.
Beside this he has the general care of the church: to see that the
floor be swept when it needs it, and that the snow is taken off the
roof and from out the gutters: that the font be ready for the blessing
on Holy Saturday, and palms before Palm Sunday, and that palms be
burned for ashes before Ash Wednesday. For the blessing of the font he
is to provide three copies “for the priests to sing _Rex Sanctorum_.”
Every Sunday “he shall bear holy water to every house in his ward, and
he to have his due of every man, after his degree, quarterly.” In the
same way he must see that the holy cake is ready every Sunday according
to every man’s degree, “and he shall bear the holy bread to serve
the people in the north syde of the church, and he to go to them on
‘twelfth day’ for his offering to the repair of his surplice. On Shere
Thursday (the Thursday in Holy Week) and Holy Saturday he is to get
ready a barrell for the blessed water, and on the former he is to have
the ‘birch besom for the priest that washes the altar’ and the three
discipling rods.”
Moreover, at “every principal feast” he is to help the churchwardens
“to array the High Altar with clothes necessary for it,” being ready
for them “at the third peal of the first Evensong.” He is to help “the
churchwardens to cover the altar and the rood in lent with lenten
cloths, and to hang the veil in the choir.” He and “his fellow” is
to look to the bells and provide ropes and grease, and they are to
divide the ringing fees between them. He is “to cover the pulpit with a
pall when any doctor preaches.” He is to go vested in his surplice to
accompany the parson when he goes to take the Blessed Sacrament to the
sick, and “to fetch any corpse to the church.”
The second “deacon” or clerk, commonly called “the fellow” of the first
in this document, has also his special duties assigned. Every week-day
he is to ring the second peal for Matins at half-past six. He is to see
to the books on the north side of the choir, and sing on that side as
the first “deacon” does for the south. At Evensong he shall do in like
manner, but “he shall be subdeacon every Sunday and Holy-day at the
procession and Mass, and read the Epistle.” Generally he is to assist
the “deacon” with the choir books and processionals, and help to fold
up the vestments and albs, etc.
Beyond the above-named parish officials there were obviously, many
others whose services were occasionally required. Amongst others are:
The _Sexton_, whose office was what it remains at the present day. Such
an official is named, in 1490, in the parish accounts of Cratfield; but
the extremely rare mention of the name seems to show that in a mediæval
parish each individual family interested saw to the preparation of the
last resting-place of any of their dead relations.
The _Schoolmaster_, or, at any rate, one who occupied the place of a
teacher of the young, is more frequently named in connection with the
parish than many people would be inclined to believe. An examination
of the records of parish life contained in the invaluable _Valor
Ecclesiasticus_ will reveal the fact of the existence of both grammar
and song schools in many places in the sixteenth century. At Preston,
in Amounderness, for instance, a chantry priest was bound to keep a
“free grammar school” for the parish, and at the suppression of the
chantry, the lands left to support this were seized by the Crown. The
official returns by the Commissioners for suppressing the chantries
afford many examples of these schools taught by priests and by clerks.
These generally, no doubt, existed by reason of special foundations
made by generous benefactors for the purpose; but in one case at
least, at Lavenham, “the alderman of St. Peter’s Guild” finds a priest
who “teaches the children of the said town and acts as secondary to the
curate, who, without help of another priest, is not able to serve the
cure there.”
The _Bell-ringer_ was an important official in every parish. His first
duty was to ring for the services in the church, and to toll the bell
for deaths, funerals, obits, or anniversary services. If his wages were
paid by the parish, his labours were in most places one of the sources
of income by which the parish chest was replenished, as the fees
charged brought in more than the amount paid to him. In some places,
besides his duty in regard to the bells, he was appointed to look after
various lamps or lights. Thus at Swaffham, in Norfolk, one Simon Blake
appoints “a lamp to burn by his grave on all holidays and Lord’s days,
from Matins to Compline, and the bellman of the town of Swaffham to
take care of it.”
At times, too, the bellman was employed in making collections for some
church purpose. Thus at Sutherton, in 1485, the bellman, named Saunder,
was engaged in soliciting money for keeping two lights at the High
Altar, and he was paid by the churchwardens for going to Lincoln “to
bring home the waxe,” for the making of candles for the consecration
of the church. At St. Nicholas’s Church, Great Yarmouth, in 1511, the
bellman was paid for covering the images in Lent-time. But, so far as
the parish was concerned, the most important function of this official
was his proclamation of deaths and anniversaries. In one of the York
wills there is a bequest of 6_d._ to the bellman for announcing the
funeral of the testator. Sir Adam Outlaw, priest, bequeaths a tenement
to the West Lynn town bellman on condition of his “going with his bell
about the town” on his “year-day” to ask the people to “pray for the
souls of Thomas of Acre and Muriel his wife, his (Sir Adam’s) soul, and
the souls of his benefactors.”
In like manner, the Guild of St. Botulph’s Church at Boston employed
the bellman to announce the anniversaries of its brethren. Thus, in
January the Sacrist was to remember to send him round about the city to
proclaim the obit day of Richard Chapman, and proclaim each year his
will. At each street he was to ring his bell and say: “For the sowles
of Richard Chapeman and Alys his wyf, brother and syster of Corpus
Christi Gylde to-morne (_i.e._ to-morrow) shall be theyre yere day,”
for which service he was to receive a penny. This crier was constantly
being sent round on similar errands for other guilds, and from these
same records the names of some eight such societies, besides the Corpus
Christi Guild, are known: that is, St. Mary’s Guild, that of the
Trinity, and those of St. George, St. Peter, the “Felichyp of Heven,”
Seven Martyrs, St. Katherine, and the Apostles. The object of these
constant proclamations was, of course, to call the various members
of fraternities and societies to attend at funerals and anniversary
masses and pray for the souls of the brethren and sisters who had gone
before them to that future life, which in those days of simple faith
was hardly less a reality to all Christian folk than the present world
which their senses told them about.
The bells used by the bellmen seem, from some inventories, to have been
the property of the parish. They are called “Rogation bells,” from
their use in calling people to the church, and they were rung in the
funeral procession from the house of the deceased parishioner to the
church. In 1463, John Baret, of Bury St. Edmunds, directs that the two
bellmen, who go about the town on his death announcing his funeral,
are to have gowns given them. And at “my yeer-day,” he adds, they are
to have each 4_d._ for going about the town to call on the inhabitants
“to pray for my soul, and for my faderis and modrys,” and the same for
ringing on the “month’s mind.”
Another remarkable custom, which seems to have been no novelty in the
middle of the fifteenth century, was the use of a chime barrel set
with the tune of the _Requiem æternam_, the Introit of the Mass for
the dead. This, as it only ranged over five notes, was easily managed,
and the instrument was wheeled throughout the town, grinding out this
lament for some departed inhabitant. The John Baret named above makes
special arrangements for this to be done at Bury on his decease, for
thirty days after, and during the following Lent-time.
Of people employed at various times and for diverse purposes by the
parish, there were a great many about whom very little need be said.
Over and above masons and carpenters and women to wash surplices and
albs and repair vestments, who may be called regular employees, the
accounts of the churchwardens show that many others were, from time to
time, paid by the parish funds. One of the most regular, naturally,
when lights were so much used, was the _Candlemaker_, who apparently
travelled about from place to place exercising his art. At Cowfield, in
Sussex, for instance, in the years 1471-85, the churchwardens’ payments
for candlemaking were at regular intervals, and besides finding the
wax and the wages, the wardens supplied also the board and lodging
for the master workman. At Great St. Mary’s, Cambridge, the wardens,
in 1537, bought 35 lbs. of wax, at 7_d._ a pound, “for the Sepulchre
and Roode lyghtes;” they paid 5_s._ for making it up, and 2_s._
3½_d._ “for a dinner at the making.” At St. Mary-at-Hill, London,
“Roger Middelton, wax channdeler,” was paid “for makyng of the said
ryeve loen (92 lbs.) and olde wax, made in tapris for the Bemelight
and other tapris, prickettes, and tenebre candilles, for every lb. a
half-penny--11 shilling 9_d._”
In the same way parishes employed travelling bookmakers, that is,
scribes and bookbinders and illuminators. Thus, as an instance, at the
beginning of the fifteenth century, the wardens of St. Augustine’s
Church, at Hedon, in the East Riding, paid 10_s._ 8_d._ for parchment
to make a book; to Adam Skelton, a scribe, for writing it, 4_d._; to
“John Payntor for a picture, 10_s._,” and 6_d._ for the breakfasts of
the scribes. There is evidence that sometimes the curate of a parish
acted as a scribe, and received a fee for so doing; sometimes clerics
at other places were employed, as a clerk at the Almonry at Canterbury,
who wrote a book for the church of St. Dunstan in that city.
The same applies also to the _Bookbinder_, who used to ply his trade
from place to place, repairing the old and making new bindings for new
and old manuscript service and music books. So too the same evidence of
the accounts of churchwardens shows the _Painter_, the _Carver_, the
_Silversmith_, the _Gilder_, and the _Tinker_ constantly at work in
various places, according to the needs and means and enterprise of the
English parochial authorities.
In all cases it was the work of the people. Through their wardens they
arranged, superintended, and finally settled the accounts of these
various travelling workmen and artists. How they raised the money
required for all the work that was carried out during the last half of
the fifteenth century must always remain a mystery. Some account of
their ways of collecting funds for parochial purposes will appear in
the next chapter; but when all is said, the mystery remains.
FOOTNOTES:
[A] Lever, _Sermon before the King_, 1550 (Arber’s Reprint, p. 82).
CHAPTER VI
PAROCHIAL FINANCE
In view of the many expenses which devolved upon the wardens in the
working of a mediæval parish, it is important to try to understand how
they were able to raise the necessary funds. In the first place, of
course, it must be understood that the churchwardens had nothing to do
with the tithes--that is, with the regular charge on the produce of the
land, which was from the first intended for the support of the clergy,
for the poor, and for the maintenance of the chancel portion of the
church’s fabric. These were received in due course, according to the
law, by the parson, or vicar, or by their agent, without any reference
to the popular representatives of the parish as such, and except for an
occasional donation from the priest to the common fund for some special
purpose, the parish exchequer took nothing whatever from the tithe due
to the clergyman.
The methods by which the people of a parish raised money for their
works were many and various, and some of them curious; some few of
them must needs be touched upon briefly in any account of the life
of a mediæval parish. In the first place, then, may be mentioned the
occasional _voluntary assessment_ of the people of a parish, according
to their possessions, sometimes called “setts,” or “cess.” This,
however, was not a very common way of raising money, and recourse
was had to it, apparently, only in the case of extraordinary repairs
upon the church becoming necessary. From the many examples that are
to be found in the extant accounts, the voluntary rate was evidently
difficult to enforce, especially when the amount claimed had, more or
less, to be proportioned to the property of individuals. Still, in some
places, it was clearly very successful as a means of raising money;
as, for instance, at Wigtoft, in Lincolnshire, where, in 1525, the
accounts show that the church was completely repaired by money obtained
by a voluntary rate. Here a list of eighty-six inhabitants is given,
who are assessed at sums varying from 1_d._ to 3_s._ 4_d._ Although
the unequal incidence of the tax was evidently admitted by all, it was
apparently held that when the parish had made the rate, its vote was
binding upon every one. At St. Dunstan’s, Canterbury, in 1485, a church
rate, or “cess,” produced £4 5_s._ 1½_d._, in sums varying from John
Roper’s 6_s._ 8_d._ to Richard Crane’s 4_d._; whilst at the same time
extra “gifts of devotion” are recorded of sums varying from ½_d._ to
4_d._ Between 1504 and 1508 another parish “cess,” in the same place,
produced nearly £6.
Closely allied to a parochial rate, although not so universal, nor,
of course, possessing the binding force of a public assessment, were
_joint voluntary gifts_ for special purposes. Something in the way of
decoration, or of a bell, a window, a vestment, or a piece of plate was
wanted, and the people, as one account expresses it, immediately “drew
themselves together” to pay for it, or to purchase it. For instance,
at Morebath, a small uplandish parish in Somerset, on the borders of
Devon, in 1538-9, some of the inhabitants bought a new cope for their
church at the cost of £3 6_s._ 8_d._ From 1528, also, in the same
place, the vicar gave up his rights over certain tithes of wool to
add to the sum then being collected to purchase a “new suit of black
vestments.” It is perhaps worth noting that these were only obtained
for £6 5_s._ in 1547, just before the alterations in religion made them
useless.
Towards the end of the fifteenth century a change is noticeable in
the accounts of the churchwardens. It evidently became more and more
common for them to possess lands, and to have houses left to them,
as trustees of the parish; the revenues of these were used only for
parochial purposes, and mainly, perhaps, for the upkeep of lights and
the celebration of anniversaries. Running through all the wills of this
period, too, is a manifestation of the same spirit of devotion to the
parochial churches, with which the donors had been connected during
life, and the same eager desire to leave something in money or in kind
to them is everywhere seen. These naturally, if not by express desire,
came into the charge and guardianship, not of the parson of the place,
but of the people’s wardens, who were responsible for the Church goods.
Instances of such gifts are so numerous that the selection of examples
is rendered almost impossible, and they are taken here almost at
haphazard. At Woodchurch, in Cheshire, in 1525, one James Godyker left
to the wardens of his parish church 20 marks to buy twenty bullocks to
be let for the purpose of bringing sufficient revenue to find an extra
priest. In Nottingham, a shop in “Shoemakers row” was left to sustain
a lamp; in other places in that county there are “divers lands to pay
an extra priest, who has also a house;” “money is bequeathed to be
distributed unto the poore yerly;” “arable land was given for a light;”
“medow land for a lamp;” a “stock of 5 sheep, valued at 2_s._ 8_d._
each, and one cow valued at 8_s._;” “two stocks of money 10_s._ and
26_s._ 8_d._ in the tenure of Robert Braunesby, Edward Dawson,” etc.,
and “20_s._ in the tenure of Richard Blank--the interest being 4_d._ on
every noble,” etc.
Then _collections_ were made by the assent of the parish at various
times and in different ways. Thus _The Early History of the Town and
Port of Hedon_, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, shows the wardens of
St. James’ making collections in the town for church purposes three
times a year. At the feast of St. Mary Magdalene they themselves
collected both through the town and in the fair, like the wardens of
St. Augustine’s. On the feast of St. John, during Christmas week, boys
were sent round with collecting bags, and each boy received 1_d._ for
his pains. In the parish of St. Augustine’s, in the same place, there
were many receipts from these collections, such as: “collections in the
city, 5_s._;” “in the church on the feast of the Circumcision, 10_s._;”
“on St. Mary Magdalene’s day, with relics in the city, 15_s._;” “on
all Sundays with the _tabula_, 8_s._” This last form of collecting
seems to have been very popular at Hedon and elsewhere, and probably
refers to the method of carrying round some holy picture to excite the
devotion and generosity of the people. In the same way, and with the
same end, in numberless places relics of the saints were taken about by
the collectors for the reverence of the faithful. At St. Dunstan’s,
Canterbury, the outdoor collections were made by members of the various
brotherhoods, which, to the number of eight or nine, were attached to
the church. In the same way the parish cross, which may be considered
to be the corporation banner of the parishioners, was carried round the
city or district to remind the people of their duty to assist in the
corporate work and to stimulate their devotion.
The times for making regular collections naturally varied in different
places. In the church of St. Helen’s, Worcester, for instance, there
seem to have been three yearly collections for general church purposes,
namely: _Lux fulgebit_ Sunday (Christmas), Paschaltide, and the
“standing afore the church at the Fayre.” These regular days did not,
of course, interfere with other special collections in the same parish,
as “for St. Katherine’s light,” “our Lady light,” “the Clerke’s money,”
“Peter’s farthings,” etc. At St. Edmund and St. Thomas, Salisbury,
special collections were made for the fabric on every Good Friday and
Easter day. On the latter day, in one year in this parish, £2 10_s._
1½_d._ were contributed to the “font taper,” which would appear
from other accounts to be the name for the penny given by each man,
and the halfpenny given by each woman, who communicated on Easter
day--a contribution which was prohibited by some bishops, as likely
to be misunderstood. With this view, the payment was ordered to be
transferred till the Sunday following the Easter Communion.
Collections for specific objects are, perhaps, the most common in all
parochial accounts. In one, the holy water vat for the asperges and the
thurible are said to have been purchased by collections “made by boys
of the parish.” In another, that of St. Mary-at-Hill, such collections
were very constant; money for “candlesilver” was regular, and for such
objects as the new “Rood loft,” etc., frequent. At St. Petrock’s,
Exeter, in 1427, there was an agreement made as to the candle money,
which in those days was obviously a constant and a heavy expense in
every parish. It was to this effect--
“Ordinans made by the eight men for gatheryn to the waxe sylver kep
to the lighte beforr the high-cross, whyche saye is, that every man
and hys wyffe to the waxe shall paye yerely one peny, and every hired
servant that taketh wages a hallfe peny, and every other persons at
Ester, takyn no wage, a farthyng.”
Sometimes the wardens placed a collecting-box in the church to receive
general offerings towards parochial expenses. This seems to have led
at times to difficulties with the parson, and at one time it was
prohibited. Bishop Quevil, of Exeter, for example, says that the
practice introduced into some parishes of putting a box, either into
the church or outside, to gather alms, has led “to contentions between
the rector and his parishioners.” Some of the latter have further
declared that “it was a better almsdeed to put money into the common
box than to give it to the priest,” and in this way the priests do
not get their accustomed offerings. They do not, for instance, get
from the laity their donations towards the candles on the Feast of
the Purification and other feasts of the year, “according to laudable
custom,” but these gifts go into the hands of the wardens “for a light
before the great crucifix, etc.” The bishop consequently orders that
all such collecting-boxes be removed from the churches or cemeteries of
his diocese at once.
[Illustration: ALMS BOX, BLYTHBURGH, SUFFOLK]
Regular Sunday collections were made in certain places for the wants
of the parish. The Hythe churchwardens, although depending mainly
upon gifts and legacies for the money necessary to satisfy their
obligations, had public collections on twenty-six Sundays in the year.
The people were apparently few, and the collections did not produce
much; the total being only 34_s._ 4_d._ for the six months, and the
individual collection varying from 6_d._ to 1_s._ 6_d._; except on
Easter Sunday, when the collectors seem to have gathered 10_s._ 6_d._
In 1498 the parochial needs at Leverton, in Lincolnshire, became so
great that the two wardens, Christopher Pyckyll and Robert Tayler, made
an appeal at “ye gathering of the townschyp and in the kyrke,” with the
result that they collected the sum of £4 13_s._ 10_d._ for the building
of the steeple.
One of the most regular sources of parochial receipt was the fee for
burial in the church or churchyard. To judge from several entries
in various accounts, the cost of opening a grave in the nave of the
church was 6_s._ 8_d._, which belonged to the parish. Thus at St.
Mary’s, Cambridge, in 1515, in the churchwardens’ receipts there are
two such items, one for the burial of Calo Fremeston, and the other
for that of a “Mr. Wise.” In London, as we might perhaps expect,
the fee was greater; in fact, in the accounts of St. Mary-at-Hill,
in 1522-3, among the “Casuell Resceites” are entered those “for the
buryall of John Colers in the chirche, 13_s._; for the buryall of
William Holyngworthi’s child, 2_s._; for the buryall of a stranger
in the great churchyard, 12_d._; for the buryall of a priest in the
pardon churchyard, 2_s._; for the buryall of Robert Hikman in St.
Ann’s Chapel, 13_s._ 4_d._” This same year a regular table of “fees
to be paid” to the parish for burials in the church, churchyard, or
pardon-churchyard attached to the church of St. Mary’s was drawn up.
From this we learn that for every grave opened, in either of the two
chapels of St. Stephen and St. Katherine, 13_s._ 4_d._ was to be paid:
for every man, woman, and child buried “without the choir door of any
of the said chapels ... unto the west door of the aisle going south
or north,” 10_s._ was to be paid; and for any burial “from the cross
aisle to the west end of the church,” 6_s._ 8_d._ The price of the
ground thus varied according to the position, and similarly the clerk’s
fee varied for breaking the ground: it was 3_s._ 8_d._ in the first
case, 2_s._ 6_d._ in the second, and 1_s._ 8_d._ in the third. These
payments, of course, had nothing to do with the fee of the clergyman:
this was fixed at 1_d._ as a minimum, but generally more was given
according to the means of the family. The smallness of the fee may
perhaps be explained by the English custom of “mortuaries,” that is,
the gift of the best or second best possession of the deceased to the
church.
“In some places (says Bracton) the church has the best beast, or the
second or the third best, and in some places nothing; and therefore
the custom of the place is to be considered ... and although no one is
bound to give anything to the church for burial, nevertheless, where
the laudable custom exists the Lord the Pope does not wish to break
through it.”
Immediately connected with the subject of burials were two practices,
which brought some additions to the parochial exchequer. The first was
the custom of special payments made for the use of the best cross,
etc., if the parish was possessed of one. It would seem that generally,
besides the processional cross, every parish had a second cross used
at funerals, but occasionally they had either purchased or in some way
become possessed of a more magnificent and elaborate crucifix. For the
use of this last the wardens as a rule made a charge, and this payment
brought some money into the common purse. Thus the churchwardens’
accounts of St. Ewen’s, Bristol, show that, about the middle of the
fifteenth century, the parish made a precious crucifix of this kind.
People contributed all manner of broken silver and jewels for the work,
and all sorts and conditions of men and women gave of their riches or
their poverty to it. Alice Sylkwoman, for instance, gave a ring, and
Thomas Fisher an old spoon, etc. When the work of art was finished it
was weighed before the parson and the parishioners, and, not counting
the bar of iron in its centre, it was found to be 116 ounces of “clere
sylver and gold.” No sooner was it made than it was arranged to charge
a special fee for its use, and in 1459-60 one of the parishioners,
“Thomas Phelyp, barber,” paid the fee “for the best cross at his Wyf’s
buryeng.”
In the same way the churchwardens appear to have let out the bier and
lights to be used at funerals for the payment of a fee. The parish
lights especially are very frequently named in the accounts of the
churchwardens; although not infrequently the torches were furnished
by the various guilds, the members of which had sometimes the right
of hiring them for the burials of friends. In this way, to take but
one example, the wardens of the parish of Ashburton in 1523-24 let
out “the best cross and parish tapers” to a neighbouring parish, and
received 21_s._ 8_d._ for the transaction; a very notable addition to
the parochial income. Parishioners also paid for the use of the parish
cross and candlesticks at funerals in their own church. In the same
way, the vestments and plate and hangings were lent for a payment to
other parishes for a great funeral or festival. In the accounts of St.
Mary-at-Hill, for instance, 4_s._ 8_d._ were paid by “the churchwardens
of All Hallows in Lombard Street for hyryng of the church stuffe.”
A further source of income was found towards the beginning of the
sixteenth century when the letting of pews or seats in the church
became a custom. The revenue from this was always successfully claimed
by the wardens in behalf of the parishioners, on the ground, no doubt,
that the nave of the church where these seats had been erected was
their property, and that the fee for the exclusive right of any special
portion belonged to them, on the same principle as the money for the
sale of any particular part for a grave. This practice of letting pews
for the use of individuals has already been sufficiently illustrated by
examples.
The practice of leaving sums of money by will to the wardens for
definite purposes was almost universal in the last half of the
fifteenth century and at the beginning of the sixteenth. In the
accounts of St. Mary-at-Hill, in London, are to be found such entries
as: “Received of William Blase, Barbowrez (_i.e._ the barber’s) wife,
for painting of an image of Our Lady within the Church--20_d._,”
and many other examples have previously been given of sums left by
deceased parishioners for special work in their parish churches, such
as the erection or adornment of the rood or its loft. Bishop Hobhouse
has noticed in the Somerset churchwardens’ accounts that there was
hardly any conceivable kind of property that was not handed over to
the wardens for church purposes, either to produce income by being
leased out, or to be sold for the benefit of the common exchequer. Live
stock of every sort is represented--cows, oxen for ploughing, rams,
sheep, lambs, bees, cocks and hens, geese, and even pigs are named.
At Morebath almost every altar had its endowment of sheep, and at St.
Mary’s, in the city of Bath, there was a little flock managed by the
wardens. In the former small parish there were no fewer than eight
different accounts kept, and “a supernumerary body” of from three to
nine parishioners were added to the wardens “as controllers of the
parish stock.” At Bromley, Margaret White, widow, who died in June,
1538, by her will gave to the church one hive of bees to support the
light of All Hallows, one hive to support the light of the Sepulchre,
and a third to the light of St. Anthony. Also to the keeping of her
obit she gave two kine, and directed that the obit should be kept
“out of the increase of the said kine,” and her name placed on the
bede-roll, and that Mass be said and bread and cheese and drink given
to four poor people.
In other places gifts in kind appropriate to the locality, such
as malt, barley, wheat, etc., appear on the roll of accounts. At
Walberswick, in Suffolk, in 1451, one Thomas Comber handed over to the
people’s wardens 2500 herrings; another gave a set of fishing-nets.
At Wigtoft, a village near Boston, “a long-ladder” was given to the
church; whilst in the same place a parishioner, named Peter Saltweller,
paid a yearly rent of 1_s._ 4_d._ for a “salt pan,” or pit for making
salt, which had been given to the church.
Many of the gifts in kind were, of course, sold. Thus, for the
Walberswick herrings the wardens obtained 1_s._, and the set of
fishing-nets brought in no less than 8_s._ 6_d._ In the same parish, in
1500, one John Almyngham left by will, dated October 7, a sum, large
in those days, of £20 to his parish church. Ten pounds were to be
expended by the wardens in purchasing “a peyer of organys.” “Item with
the residue,” he says, “I will a canopy over the High Auter well done
with Our Lady and four angels, and the Holy Ghost (probably a dove to
contain the Blessed Sacrament) going up and down with a chain.”
In 1483-4 the parishioners of St. Edmund’s and St. Thomas’s, Salisbury,
contributed all kinds of articles to be the common goods of the
parish, or else to be sold for what they would fetch. From the wife of
a barber in the city there is recorded the present of “a brass dish
and a plate.” At another time, “for writing the names in the book,”
or bede-roll, one William Dyngyn gave to the wardens “a red girdle”
ornamented “with silver and gold.” One of the favourite gifts at this
time for people to make to their churches was “a set of beads,” or, to
call it by the modern name, “a rosary.” Again and again this kind of
gift is recorded, and so also is the sale of the same for the benefit
of the common purse. For example, in the accounts of St. Mary the
Great, Cambridge, may be seen numerous instances of this. In 1540, for
example, there is entered the following--“_memorandum_: that at the
feast of St. John the Baptist ... a pair of silver beads and two other
pair of corall, gauded with silver, were sold by the churchwardens to
James, goldsmith of Saint Benet’s parish ... by the consent of most
part of the parishioners.” “Item the collar of baudryk of gold, having
9 links enamelled of gold, with the ouche of St. Nicholas and little
monstre or Relic of St. Nicholas’ oil, is taken from the custody of the
churchwardens to be sold at Stourbridge fair by agreement and consent
also of the parishioners.” At Walberswick, to turn again to that parish
for an example, in 1498 the wardens acknowledge the receipt of 4_s._
4_d._ for “a pair of beads that were Margaret Middleton’s.” So, too,
at Pilton, in Somerset, in 1515, one of the parishioners paid the
churchwardens 10_d._ for a set of beads, which had been given them to
dispose of; and at Yatton another pair “of amber” were sold for 7_d._,
which was credited to the common stock.
It is well to note, however, that gifts made for some special purpose,
for a particular altar, or statue, etc., were not disposed of in the
way described above, but were preserved, and the names of the donors
were kept alive by means of the bede-rolls, which will be subsequently
spoken about. What apparently the parishioners held that they had a
right to sell for the common good of the parish, were gifts made with
the donor’s expressed or implied intention that this should be done;
and goods, plate, or vestments, which had been previously purchased
by the parish, and which, as was held in those days, certainly could
be sold to purchase other goods or ornaments, or to carry out some
necessary parochial work.
Goods of all kinds, given for a special purpose and held by the
churchwardens as trustees, were protected by ecclesiastical
legislation. The Synod of Exeter, for example, in 1287, orders the
wardens to keep all such presents in careful custody, to produce them
when called upon by authority, and not to turn them to any other use
than that for which they were originally given. This applies, the
Constitution declares, to the revenues of chantries and altars, and
even to the lights provided for them, and this property may never be
alienated, except in case of some great necessity, when the leave of
the archdeacon, or at any rate of the rector, must be first obtained.
The names of some few other parish collections may here be usefully
recorded. _Dowelling_, or dwelling-house money, was a tax or rate
levied for parochial purposes on each household--a church rate,
in fact. This assessment was sometimes known as _smoke-money_, or
_smoke-farthing_, meaning the contribution made from each family hearth
or house. Sometimes this was evidently known as _Pentecostal_, and it
then referred to the offerings made by the parishioners at Whitsuntide
to the parish priest. “Pentecostal oblations,” varying in amount from
1_s._ to 1_s._ 4_d._, are entered for many years in the churchwardens’
accounts of Aldworth, Berks. “Smoke-money,” or “smoke-silver,” is said
also to have been a money payment made to the parson in lieu of a
tithe of wood; but the name certainly appears in some churchwardens’
accounts as a contribution to the parish, and not to the priest. For
instance, at Bromley, in 1527-8, “smoke-farthings” produced 14_s._
for the common parochial purse, and “dowelling-money” 9_s._ 3_d._ At
Laverton, in Lincolnshire, each householder apparently gave 1½_d._
as his share of “smoke-money;” and at St. Edmund’s and St. Thomas’s,
Salisbury, the tax was known as “smoke-silver,” or “smoke-farthings.”
At Easter time the churchwardens had to collect “Peter’s pence,” “Rome
fardynges,” “Rome’s scot,” or “Peter farthings,” the contribution from
each household to the Pope. It is well to remark, however, that it
is obvious, from the accounts of this contribution to be found, that
not more than 50 per cent. of the amount collected ever found its way
into the papal coffers. The wardens collected the money and paid it
to the archdeacon at the time of visitation. At St. Mary the Great,
Cambridge, for example, they paid “at ye visytacion, for Rome Fardynges
22½_d._” Great care was taken to secure the punctual payment of
these dues to the Holy See, and warnings were issued when the parish
was in arrears. For continual neglect to pay it was punished with
interdict.
Lastly, there was another very general form of collection made by the
churchwardens, called variously “wax-silver,” “candle-silver,” “Easter
money,” or “Paschal money.” These were payments made in many parishes
towards the annual expenses of the parish in finding candles and
lamps to burn in the churches. In some places the amount paid by each
parishioner was ½_d._ Besides the above, there were various forms of
contribution in different places; as, for example, special payments for
“the holy loaf,” or blessed bread. An examination of the various extant
churchwardens’ accounts will show that these officials were never at a
loss to obtain money from their fellow-parishioners when they needed
it for any special purpose. One great resource, which apparently never
failed them, took the form of social meetings at the Church House, or
elsewhere; but as to these gatherings more will have to be said in a
subsequent chapter.
CHAPTER VII
THE PARISH CHURCH SERVICES
As the church was from the earliest times the centre of the parish, and
the priest the head of his flock and the chief person--the parson--of
the district, it is natural to look for the first indications of all
parochial life in the church itself. From the cradle to the grave, as
it has often been said, through the clergy, religion extended its care
to every soul, and exerted its influence over man, woman, and child
in every parochial district, mainly by means of the Church services
and the administration of the Christian Sacraments. In this and the
following chapter it is proposed to examine the nature and extent of
these influences in pre-Reformation parochial life.
_Daily Mass._--In the first place it is proper to speak of the
perpetual round of prayer and Eucharistic sacrifice known as the daily
Mass. Archbishop Cranmer, in his works on the “Supper,” testifies
to the devotion of the people generally to their morning Mass. He
represents them as “saying, ‘This day have I seen my Maker;’ and ‘I
cannot be quiet except I see my Maker once a day.’” The Mass was
regarded, as the author of _Dives and Pauper_ says, as “the highest
prayer that holy church can devise for the salvation of the quick and
the dead,” in which “the priest offereth up the highest sacrifice and
the best offering that any heart can devise, that is Christ, God’s Son
in Heaven, under the form of bread and wine.”
According to Lyndwood’s gloss on Archbishop Peckham’s Constitution,
every priest in those days was supposed to offer up his Mass as
frequently as possible, unless he was prevented by some bodily
infirmity, or some personal and adequate reason made him abstain from
daily celebration. In that case, very frequently, the parishioners
would themselves provide for the morning Mass to be said by some paid
chaplain. In one case, in the diocese of London, in the fourteenth
century, the people seriously complain to their bishop that their vicar
will not secure the services of a chaplain and a clerk, for whom they
had agreed to pay, to give them Mass “every day.”
At Henley-on-Thames, in 1482, “the Mayor and Commonalty” arranged
that the priest of the altar of the Blessed Virgin Mary should say
Mass every day at 6 a.m., and the chantry priest of St. Katherine’s
at 8 o’clock. In large churches, where there were many chaplains and
chantry priests, the Masses followed one another continuously: thus,
for example, at Lincoln Cathedral the early morning Mass was said at 5
o’clock each day in St. Chad’s Chapel, but the chaplain, whose duty it
was to say it, was not bound to be at midnight Matins. The same may be
said of Lichfield. The other daily Masses were to be each hour, from 6
a.m. till 10, when the High Mass was begun. After the consecration of
this sung Mass, the last daily Mass, intended for travellers, was to be
begun.
These early morning Masses were called by various names, of which
“Morrow Mass” and “Jesu Mass” were the most common. In the Chantry
Certificates a great number of entries of parcels of lands, etc., for
the support of some daily Mass in the early morning, show how popular
this service was in pre-Reformation days. In one place, in the county
of Nottingham, the chantry suppressed is declared to have been founded
for a priest “to say Mass every morning before sonne rysing, for such
as be travellers by the way, and to maintain God’s service there; which
town is also a thoroughfare towne.” At Barnards’ Castle, the Guild of
Holy Trinity paid for a priest “to say Mass daily at six o’clock in
the morning, and to be resident at Matins, Mass, and Evensong, and to
keep a free grammar school and a song school for all the children of
the town.” At Ipswich, “Mr. Alfrey’s chantry was founded for a priest
to sing the ‘Morowe Mass,’ in the parish church at St. Matthew;” whilst
at Newark the chantry priest of St. Mary Magdalene’s had to say Mass
for the people at 4 o’clock in the morning. Most of the instances
recorded show that the “Morrow Mass,” whether at daybreak or at 4 or
5 or 6 o’clock, was endowed by benefactors with the revenues of lands
or tenements. Sometimes, however, the stipend of the priest was paid
by money collected for the purpose from the parishioners. At Bury St.
Edmunds, for instance, the greater part of the necessary money for
the early-mass priest was “gathered wekely of the devotion of the
parishioners.” The churchwardens’ accounts of St. Edmund’s and St.
Thomas’s, Salisbury, show that a certain “fraternity” paid for a priest
to say “the Morrow Masse of Jesus,” they also paid for a torch and 6
lbs. of tallow candles for “the said Morrowe Masse prest in Wynter.” In
the parish of St. Peter-Cheap, London, the Wardens paid the stipend for
a curate to say Mass every morning at six o’clock, and the wages of a
clerk to serve him.
At St. Martin’s Outwich, London, the sum of 33_s._ 4_d._ was found each
half-year as the reward of the priest who said the Morrow Mass. In
1472, one of the parishioners of St. Mary-at-Hill, London, left to the
churchwardens of the church certain lands and houses to find a priest
to say Mass daily, “immediately after the morowe masse, in the said
church of St. Mary, to be sung, yf the morowe masse in the same chirche
be continued as heretofore it was wont to be and now is used, or ellse
in defaute of the same morowe masse, that my said Prieste syng daily
reasonable tymely his masse in stede and tyme of the morrowe masse....”
Then, after saying that this chaplain will, of course, assist at all
the church services, the donor adds: “also that the said Priest say
every werkeday in the said Chirch of Seynt Mary atte hill, his matens,
pryme and hours, evensong and complene and all his other prayers and
services, by hymself or with his felowes preestes of the same chirch.”
In this church also the accounts show that the wardens paid one of the
priests an extra fee of 5_s._ a quarter for taking the “Morowe Masse.”
At St. Mary Woolnoth, to take but one more example, Symonde Eyre,
sometime Mayor of London, and draper, established a fraternity of our
Blessed Lady St. Mary the Virgin. There was to be a “Mass by note” and
also “two psalms by note,” one in honour of Our Lady, the other in
honour of St. Thomas of Canterbury, to be sung by a priest, clerk, and
children. To pay for this he gave the tavern called the “Cardinal,”
etc. In 1492 the property was found not to be sufficient to support
this, and another parishioner, Sir Hugh Bryce, alderman and goldsmith,
left to the churchwardens other property to maintain this custom,
namely, 6_s._ 8_d._ more to the priest, and 20_s._ “for that the clerk
shall daily kepe an anthem or _Salve_ before the Crucifix in the body
of the said Church, with _Aves_ of our Lady.” The Masses are to be sung
as follows: every Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday a Mass of Our
Lady; every Wednesday a “Missa de Requiem;” and every Friday a Mass “in
honour of the glorious name of Jesus....”
[Illustration: ORGAN--TWELFTH CENTURY]
It may, then, be taken as certain that, generally speaking, Mass was
celebrated daily in most of the parish churches. It is equally certain
that this was fairly attended by those whose duties permitted them to
be present. The _Prymer_ of 1538, in giving the duties of the week,
thus speaks of Monday:--
“Monday men ought me for to call,
In which good werkes ought to begin;
Heryng masse, the first dede of all,
Intendyng to fle deadly syn.”
So, too, _The Young Children’s Book_, which is dated about A.D. 1500,
takes for granted that those to whom the author addresses his lines
will go to their morning Mass.
“Aryse be tyme oute of thi bedde,
And blysse thi brest and thi forhede,
Then wasche thi handes and thi face,
Keme thi hede, and aske God grace
The to helpe in all thi werkes;
Thou schall spede better what so thou confes,
Then go to ye chyrche, and here a masse.”
Andrew Borde also, in his _Regyment_, says that after rising and
dressing, “then great and noble men doth use to here Masse, and other
men that can not do so, but must apply theyr busyness, doth serve
God with some prayers, surrendrynge thankes to hym for hys manyfolde
goodnes, with askynge mercye for theyr offences.” In the Introduction
to _The Lay Folks Mass Book_ Canon Simons has gathered together a
considerable number of authorities for holding that people were
supposed to hear their daily Mass, with the exception of those “common
people,” who were employed on work and could only be present on the
Sundays and holidays. In Wynkyn de Worde’s _Boke of Kervynge_ the
chamberlain is instructed “at morne” to “go to the chyrche or chapell
to your soveraynes closet and laye carpentes and cuysshens and pute
downe his boke of prayers, then drawe the curtynes.” And so, too,
Robert of Gloucester says of William the Conqueror, reflecting the
manners of the time in which he himself wrote: “In chyrche he was
devout ynou, for hym non day abyde that he na hurde masse and matyns
and evenson[g] and eche tyde.” And Canon Simmons adds--
“But that the rule of the church was not a dead letter is perhaps most
unmistakably shown by the matter-of-course way in which hearing mass
before breaking fast is introduced as an incident in the everyday
life of knights and other personages in works of fiction, which,
nevertheless, in their details were no doubt true to the ordinary
habits of the class they intended to portray....”
For example, in _Sir Gawayne and the Green Knight_ Gawayne, after the
lady has kissed him--
“Dos hir forth at ye dore, with outen dyn more
And he ryches him to ryse and rapes hym sone,
Clepes to his chamberlayn, choses his wede
Bozez forth, quen he watz boun, blythely to Masse
And thenne he meued to his mete, that menskly hym keped.”
And so again the lord hears Mass before he eats, and goes hunting at
daybreak--
“Ete a sop hastyly, when he hade herde Masse
With bugle to bent felde he buskez by-lyve.”
The Venetian traveller, who at the beginning of the sixteenth century
wrote his impressions of England, was struck by the way in which the
people attended to their religious duties in this matter of morning
Mass. “They all attend Mass every day, he writes, and say many
_Paternosters_ in public. The women carry long rosaries in their hands,
and any who can read, take the Office of Our Lady with them, and with
some companion recite it in church verse by verse, in a low voice,
after the manner of churchmen.” This story of English people going to
a daily Mass might perhaps be considered as one of the proverbially
curious stories told even by otherwise intelligent strangers from
foreign countries, were it not that it is confirmed by the assertion
of another Venetian some years later. This latter declares that every
morning “at daybreak he went to Mass arm-in-arm with some nobleman or
other.”
[Illustration: LOW SIDE WINDOW, BARNARD CASTLE, DURHAM]
Even in the case of those whose business kept them from the church
itself, it is probable that they were united in spirit to the great
act of worship which was being offered in God’s house, in their
name as well as in that of all those present. The bell known as the
Sanctus Bell, because it was rung at the saying of the Sanctus at the
beginning of the Canon of the Mass, and also at, what was considered
the most sacred time of the Sacrifice, the Consecration and Elevation
of the Elements, was intended to give notice to those working in the
fields or within reach of its sound, of these most solemn parts of
the Mass. Sometimes this bell was set in the rood beam, sometimes
in a turret rising from the chancel arch, and sometimes from the
nave gable. Occasionally it was of considerable size; but apparently
more frequently it was small, and rung by hand. Even then, however,
according to some antiquaries, the clerk or server rang the hand-bell
out of the low side window, which is frequently still existing in
parish churches, in order to warn people outside that the Mass was
going on. That this was really the practice is hardly doubtful in view
of a Constitution of Archbishop Peckham, in 1281. He directs in this,
that “at the time of the Elevation of the body of Our Lord, a bell be
rung on one side of the church (_in uno latere_), that the people who
cannot be at daily Mass, no matter where they may be, whether in the
fields or in their homes, may kneel down, and so gain the indulgences
granted by many bishops” for this act of devotion.
The behaviour of the people in the church, and in particular during
Mass time, was a matter upon which in mediæval times all were carefully
instructed. Myrc, in his _Instructions for Parish Priests_, bids the
clergy tell their parishioners that on entering the house of God they
should leave outside “many wordes” and “ydel speche,” that they should
put away all vanity and “say their _Pater noster_ and _Ave_.” They are
to be warned not to stand about or loll against the pillars or the
wall, but kneel on the floor--
“And pray to God wyth herte meke
To give them grace and mercy eke.”
When the Gospel is read they are to stand up and, blessing themselves
at the _Gloria tibi, Domine_, they are to continue standing until the
reading is finished, and then they are to kneel down again. When they
hear the bell ring for the Consecration, all, “bothe young and olde,”
are to fall on their knees, and, holding up both their hands, pray
softly to themselves thus:--
“Jesu, Lord, welcome Thou be
In form of bread as I Thee see.
Jesu! for Thy holy name
Shield me to-day from sin and shame,” etc.,
or in some similar way. The most ordinary prayers to be used at this
time, according to the books of religious instruction then in vogue,
were the _Salve lux mundi_: “Hail, Light of the world, Word of the
Father; Hail thou true Victim, the living and entire Flesh of God made
true Man,” and the _Anima Christi, sanctifica me_, supposed by many
people to be a devotional prayer of more modern origin.
Besides attendance at the morning Mass, there is little evidence of any
other ordinary daily use of the church. It would be altogether wrong,
however, to conclude that God’s house, standing open as it did all the
day through, did not attract people to it for private and unrecorded
devotion. One or two chance references in documents, such as “Proofs
of age” and “Depositions,” seem to point to the fact that the churches
were, in fact, used during the day by people seeking Almighty God’s
guidance and help, by passing strangers, and by labourers returning
from their daily toil. It has already been pointed out that in the case
of a Chantry, the benefactor who founded it made it a condition that
the priest should recite his Breviary in the church either by himself
or with others. This practice was recommended to priests generally, and
there is no reason to suppose that it was not carried out by them.
“Let all the Ministers of the Church,” says Bishop Quevil, in 1287,
“be diligent and careful in saying the Divine Office. In the name of
the Holy Trinity we order every minister of the church, carefully,
devoutly, clearly, and entirely, without any cutting down, to sing
or say the night and day Divine Office appointed by General Council.
Let those who chant it remember to pause in the middle of the verse,
and let no one begin any verse before the other has finished the
verse preceding;” and, in regard specially to parish churches, the
same Constitution ordered that “parish priests shall not leave their
churches until on feast days and Holy days they shall have said the
canonical hours either before or after Mass: and that no priest say
his Mass before he has done his duty to his Creator by saying Matins
and Prime.”
In the same way, in 1364, the Synod of Ely, held by Bishop Simon
Langham, ordered that priests were to say the whole office in their
churches, and
“that all pastors of souls and parish priests, when they had finished
the recitation of their Office in their churches, shall apply
themselves diligently to prayer and the reading of Holy Scripture, in
order that, by a knowledge of the Scriptures, they may be ready, as
becomes their office, to satisfy any one who asks for the reason of
their faith and hope. Let them ever be earnest in the teaching and
the effect of Scripture on their work, like the poles in the rings of
the ark of the covenant, so that their prayer may be nourished and
rendered fruitful by assiduous reading as by their daily bread.”
In some of the larger parish churches a considerable portion of the
Divine Office, as well as the Mass, was sung daily. A note in the
churchwardens’ accounts of St. Michael’s, Cornhill, London, written in
1538, asks prayers for “Richard Atfield, sometime parson of the church
... for that he, with consent of the bishop, ordained and established
Mattins, High Mass, and Evensong to be sung daily, in the year 1375.”
This had been done regularly for 163 years, and the hours at which the
various services were held would appear to have been: Matins at 7
a.m., High Mass at 9, and Evensong on work-days at 2 p.m.
In many of the larger churches, also, benefactors or fraternities had
arranged for the singing of a _Salve_ or other anthem of Our Lady in
the evening time at her altar or statue. At these times also tapers
would usually be lit in honour of Christ’s holy Mother. In the church
of St. Mary-at-Hill, for example, in 1353, the practice existed, for
in that year a parishioner left money to support a priest, and among
his duties it is said “that he be every day in the same chirch after
evensong, at the time of syngyng of _Salve Regina_, and that he sing
the same, or else help the syngers after his cunnyng, in honour of
our blessed lady the Virgin.” At other places, as at St. Edmund’s,
Salisbury, for instance, the singing of the _Salve_ was only undertaken
at stated times. In this case the Fridays in Lent were apparently
chosen for this evening hymn to Our Lady.
Chaucer, in _The Prioress’s Tale_, makes a little boy, who doubtless
had taken his part in this, ask his older schoolfellow what another
such anthem of Our Blessed Lady meant--the _Alma Redemptoris_.
“Noght wiste he what this Latin was to seye,
For he so yong and tendre was of age;
But on a day his felow gon he preye
T’ expounden him this song in his longage,
Or telle him why this song was in usage.
* * * * *
“His felow, which that elder was then he,
Answerede him thus: ‘This song, I have herd seye
Was maked of our blisful Lady free,
Hir to salue, and eek hir for to preye
To been our help and socour when we deye.’
* * * * *
“‘And is this song maked in reverence
Of Christe’s moder?’ seyde this innocent:
‘Now, certes, I wol do my diligence
To conne it all eer Christemasse is went.’”
_Sunday in the Parish Church._--It is time to pass to the consideration
of what took place in the mediæval parish church on the ordinary
Sundays of the year. In the _Prymer_ of 1538 are to be found some
verses called _The Dayes of the Weke Moralysed_, in which the duty of
the Christian in regard to Sunday is thus set forth:--
“I am Sonday ye honourable,
The hede of all the weke dayes.
That day all thyng labourable
Ought to rest and gyve lawd and prayers
To our Creatour, that alwayes
Wuolde have us rest after travayle
Man-servant and thy beeste he sayes
And the other or thyn avayle.”
The first question that arises is as to the attendance of the people at
the Matins which preceded the parochial Mass. It would seem to be quite
certain that even in the smallest churches on Sundays and Holy days the
Office was recited by the priests, or, in the cases where there was
only one, by the priest and his clerk in the early morning. Further,
from the various directions and instructions given to the people, it
seems practically certain that they were not only expected to be at the
Matins, but, as far as possible, were actually present at them.
The evidence of the various Visitations shows that even the smallest
churches were expected to be provided by the rector with the Matin
books. For example, in the Visitation of churches in the diocese
of Exeter, in 1440, there were constant notes as to the “_libri
matutinales_” being in need of repair, or being “sufficiently good.”
In one case it is stated that the rector had built a new chancel, had
done much to the rectory house, and had “provided good Matin books.” In
another the rector is said to have “hired a scribe to write new books.”
In the same diocese, in 1301, it was made an article of complaint, by
the parishioners of Colebrooke, at the Visitation, that their vicar did
not “sing Matins on the Greater Feasts with music” (_cum nota_), and
that he “only said Mass every other day.” The general orders for the
provision of books for this service in the Constitutions of the English
Church is sufficient evidence that the service was faithfully said or
sung.
Myrc, in his _Instructions_, says that--
“The holy day only ordeynet was
To here goddes serves and the Mas.
And spare that day in holynes
And leve alle other bysynes.”
And Langland, after saying that all business, hunting, and labour is
to stop on the Lord’s day, says, “And up-on Sonedays to cease--godes
servyce to huyre, Bothe Matyns and Masse--and after mate, in churches
to huyre here evesong, every man ought.”
That this was really done, and moreover that the English practice was
to go to the parish church and hear Matins before breaking the morning
fast, appears in a passage of Sir Thomas More’s writings.
“Some of us laymen,” he says, “thinke it a payne ones in a weeke to
ryse so soon fro sleepe, and some to tarry so long fasting, as on
the Sonday to com and hear out they Matins. And yet is not Matins in
every parish, neyther, all thynge so early begonne norfully so longe
in doyng, as it is in the Charterhouse, ye wot wel.”
In a fifteenth-century book of instructions there are given as
practical examples of the vice of sloth--
“When a man castis hym to leze in reste; to slepe mekell; to be long
in bed, late comyng to God’s service; havyng non savour nor swetnes
in prechyng, nor in bedys byddyng, nor no devocyon in Matynes nor in
Evesong.”
It is somewhat difficult to obtain any exact information as to the
time when Matins were said or sung in the English parochial churches.
That the service was begun at an early hour we must suppose, even if
we had not the authority of Sir Thomas More for the fact. To conclude
from the case of St. Michael’s, Cornhill, just quoted, it may be judged
that the hour for Matins was at 6 or 7 in the morning, and that High
Mass would commence at 9 or 10. An interval between was thus left,
during which the parishioners would have time to return home and break
their fast. If the occupation of two hours or so on a Sunday morning,
and another service in the afternoon, may appear somewhat excessive
to our modern notions, we must bear in mind that it was in those days
clearly understood and accepted as a first principle of religion that
the meaning of the Sunday rest and freedom from work was, in the first
place, that the Christian, who was occupied all the rest of the week
mainly in temporal affairs, might have time to attend to the things of
his soul. His chief duty on the Sunday was, as one of the Synodical
Constitutions puts it, “to hear divine service and Holy Mass, to pray
and to listen to the voice of the priest instructing him in his belief
and duty.”
The parochial, or High Mass, as the chief sung Mass was called, was
preceded on each Sunday by the public and solemn blessing of the holy
water. For this ceremony the priest, who was about to celebrate the
Mass, came to the entrance of the chancel, accompanied by the deacon
and subdeacon--if there were any such ministers; if not, by the clerks
and servers carrying the platter of salt and the manual, and by the
_aquæbajularius_ holding the vat of water to be blessed. From the
earliest times of English Christianity the people had been taught to
use this water and salt mingled together with the Church’s prayers,
that by it they might be reminded of the purity of heart necessary to
all God’s servants, and that, by virtue of the power of God invoked
in the prayers upon the water, His providence might watch over them
and defend them from all danger of body and soul. Pope St. Gregory the
Great had told St. Mellitus to bid our first apostle, St. Augustine,
make use of the old pagan temples, having first caused “holy water (to)
be blessed and sprinkled all over” them.
[Illustration: HOLY WATER VAT AND SPRINKLER]
In the same way the English people were taught to make use of the water
thus solemnly blessed on the Sunday in their midst. As far back as the
days of Archbishop Theodore, as appears in Thorpe’s _Ancient Laws_, it
was written: “Let the people sprinkle their houses with hallowed water
as often as they wish.” And in the porch of each parochial church a
small niche contained some of the consecrated water, with which those
coming to God’s house signed themselves, the while whispering a prayer
that they may be accepted as pure in the sight of the Most High.
On the Sunday, moreover, after the blessing was finished, the priest
and his assistants came to the foot of the altar, which was sprinkled
with newly blessed water. Then turning, he, in the same way, sprinkled
each of the assistants as they passed before him, and, last of all, if
there were no procession, he passed down the church casting the water
upon each altar he came to, and upon the people gathered in the nave.
If there was a procession, as seems generally to have been the case,
the assistants and clerks, with the servers, followed the celebrant
singing the anthems proper for the day. The parish processional cross
was carried first, with two servers bearing candles, and with the
thurifer and the clerk “water-bearer.” In the smaller churches, when
the weather permitted, no doubt the procession would wend its way
outside, and pass along, followed by the people, amidst the graves of
those former parishioners who had gone before, and who were taking
their long rest in God’s acre. It was during this Sunday visit, in all
probability, that the living offered their prayers for their dead, and
cast the blessed water upon their graves. Some of the wills of the
fifteenth century show how this practice was prized. In one will, for
instance, a citizen of York leaves a bequest to three priests to say
Masses for his soul, and asks that “each after his Mass should proceed
to his grave, say a _De profundis_ over it, and sprinkle it with holy
water.” Another citizen of the same city, and a merchant, provided for
a priest to visit his grave daily and to cast the blessed water upon it.
To return to the procession. On coming back to the church, or, if there
had been no procession, when the sprinkling of the church had been
finished, the clergy and assistants in cathedrals, gathered round the
celebrant in front of the great rood at the entrance of the choir for
the _bidding prayer_. This was, in smaller parochial churches, however,
given out from the pulpit after the Gospel of the Mass, and will be
spoken of in connection with the Sunday sermon, to which a special
chapter must be devoted.
It is unnecessary to follow the Sunday congregation of a
pre-Reformation church through the singing of the parochial Mass.
The church itself, as the bequests in the wills of the fifteenth
century and other documents show, will have been gay with a profusion
of candles burning on the rood beam, on the altars, and before each
picture or shrine or image, whilst in many places the great “rowell,”
or candle-wheel, would have been lit up, and with its crown of candles
have added to the general appearance of festivity, which the people of
mediæval England loved so much to see in their churches.
At the end of the Mass a loaf of bread, called the “holy loaf,” or
“holy bread,” was brought into the chancel, and, after being blessed by
the priest, was cut into small pieces and distributed to the people.
Then all came up to the chancel steps and received the morsel from the
celebrant, whose hands they kissed. This blessed bread signified the
fraternal love that always ought to bind Christians together, and the
practice of distributing it at the principal Sunday Mass continued
until the religious changes in the reign of Edward IV. That the custom
should be restored to them was one of the demands of the Devonshire
insurgents in that reign. The churchwardens’ accounts contain many
references to this pious practice: the purchase of baskets for the
distribution of the bread, for instance, is recorded at St. Michael’s,
Cornhill, St. Mary the Great, Cambridge, at Cratfield, and elsewhere.
At Bromley, in Surrey, the churchwardens collected from the people the
money to furnish the bread. In 1523, for instance, they acknowledge
a collection of 2_s._ for this purpose, and double that amount the
following year. Evidently, however, the custom which still prevails in
France, of families taking it in turn to give the bread to be blessed,
was not unknown in England in pre-Reformation days. Dr. Rock quotes
from some churchwardens’ accounts of Stamford-in-the-Vale, Berks, to
show that the custom was revived in Queen Mary’s days. A piece of land
there, “called Gander’s,” provided at least a portion of the expense.
“The whole value of the chargis,” says the document, “comyth to
2½_d._ and it is thus divided. They offer to the curatis hand too
penyworth of bread with halfepeny candull--brought uppe to the preste
at the highe altar. Of the too penyworthe of breade they reserve
a halfepenny lofe whole for to be delyvered to the next that shul
geve the holy lofe, for a knowledge to prepare against the Sonneday
followyng.”
The remainder of the Sunday, with the exception of the time--from half
an hour to three-quarters--spent in taking part in the Evensong or
Vespers, which were probably sung about two or three o’clock in the
afternoon, was devoted to rest and reasonable recreation, about which
something will be said in a subsequent chapter. For the priest Sunday
was the day when by law he had to visit the aged, infirm, and sick in
his parish. “Let the priests,” says the Constitution of Gilbert, Bishop
of Chichester, in 1289, “see the sick every Sunday and feast day, and
let them visit them with diligence. Let them take heed that they make
no difficulty about attending to the sick at whatever hour they may be
asked for.” This same order is repeated in the Constitutions for the
Province of York in 1518, more than two centuries after.
From the earliest times work was prohibited on Sundays and holy days.
Lyndwood, in his gloss on the Constitution of Archbishop Chicheley
prohibiting on such days “all servile work in any city or place of the
Province of Canterbury,” explains at some length the nature of the
prohibition. When the work was genuinely necessary, as might be in
the case of a barber, or a blacksmith, or a cook, then it was excused
by the necessity, and did not come under the law. But where the work
could be done on another day, or could have been easily anticipated
or postponed, then it was prohibited by ecclesiastical law. This
applied to the fairs and markets, which were so often held on feast
days, and which the authorities in the fourteenth century were so much
concerned to suppress, and the prohibition affected as well those who
sold as those who bought at them. The Constitution of John Thoresby,
Archbishop of York in 1367, was the first order against the growing
practice of holding markets and fairs on the Sundays, and the misuse
of the cemeteries in this respect. The following year Archbishop Simon
Langham sent out a general monition for the Province of Canterbury, and
a special prohibition against certain abuses in the Isle of Sheppey,
where, “for the noise of the people, the solemnities of the Mass in
the church” were disturbed, and where, on account of the attraction of
the market, people were induced to neglect their duty of being present
at the Divine Service. The prohibition against selling and purchasing,
however, did not apply to the ordinary necessaries of life, as bread,
meat, etc., so long as the sale or purchase did not interfere with the
religious obligations of the parties, and did not prevent them from
going to church.
In another place the same canonist states, as he says, “briefly,” what
kind of work was to be considered “servile,” and as such was prohibited
to the people in mediæval England. This includes all mechanical,
agricultural, and mercantile work, as well as the holding of courts or
legal inquiries of every kind, unless “reasonable necessity or charity”
required that any such work should be undertaken. In the cause of
charity, however, it was held to be lawful on the holy days to assist
to till, etc., the lands of the really poor, after all religious duties
had been fulfilled. The obligation of resting from servile work on the
Sunday or festival was reckoned from the Vesper hour on the Saturday,
or the eve.
The instruction given to the people as to servile work was very clear
and well understood. In _Dives and Pauper_ it is thus put:--
“Every deadly sin is servile work, and such servile work God defendeth
every day, but most on the Holy day. For he that doth deadly sin
on the Holy day he doth double sin, for he doth sin and thereto he
breaketh the Holy day against God’s precept. Also servile work is
called every bodily work done principally for lucre and worldly
winning, as buying, selling, sowing, mowing, reaping, and all craft
of worldly winning, also markets, fairs, sitting of Justices and of
Judges, shedding of blood and execution, of punishing by law, and
all works that should draw men from God’s service. Nevertheless, if
sowing, reaping, mowing, carting, and such other needful works (are
done) purely for alms, and only for heaven made, and for need of them
that they are done to on holy days, then are they not servile works
nor the holy day broken thereby. Nevertheless, on Sundays and great
feasts, such works should not be done, but if great need compel men
thereto and deeds of great charity.”
Then, after saying that certain tradesmen and merchants are permitted
the preparation of wares and foods that must be ready on the Monday,
the author of _Dives and Pauper_ proceeds: “Also messengers, pilgrims,
and wayfarers that might well rest without great harm are excused, so
that they do their duty to hear Matins and Mass, if they mown, for long
abyding in many journeys is costful and perilous.” Any tendency to grow
slack in the observance of the Sunday was noted, and strictly repressed
by the authorities. In one instance a bishop directs the priest to
put a stop to the shoemakers in his parish working on the Lord’s day,
as he has heard they did; in another an inquiry is ordered upon a
denunciation being made against an individual; and in a third a parson
is directed to denounce a parishioner from the pulpit for having been
proved to have worked without reason on a holy day.
Before concluding this brief sketch of the Sunday and week-day in an
English mediæval parish from the point of view of religion, notice must
be taken of one regular feature of that life--the Angelus. The Angelus
bell, the Ave bell, or the Gabriel bell, as it was variously called
in England, probably grew out of the Curfew, which originally was a
civil notification of the time to extinguish all lights; but in the
thirteenth century it was turned into a universal religious ceremony
in honour of Our Lord’s Incarnation and of His Blessed Mother. In 1347
Ralph de Salopia, Bishop of Bath and Wells, desired the cathedral
clergy to say, the first thing in the morning and the last thing at
night, five _Aves_ for all benefactors living or dead. Some few years
before that time, Pope John XXII. had urged the habit of saying three
_Aves_ at Curfew time. The practice soon spread to England, and grew
as it spread, and Archbishop Arundel of Canterbury, in 1399, at the
earnest request of King Henry IV., ordered the usage of saluting the
Mother of God the first thing in the early morning and the last thing
at night, to be universally adopted in the province--“at daybreak and
at the Curfew,” and the bell that was then rung was called by our
English ancestors the “Gabriel Bell,” in memory of that archangel’s
salutation of Our Blessed Lady. By a fortunate chance we are able to
know the actual time at which this Angelus bell was rung, for a casual
note in a Bury St. Edmund’s book gives the times of the tolling in that
city as at 4 a.m. and 9 p.m. in summer, and 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. in the
winter.
Of this religious ceremony a writer says--
“In accordance with a practice of the Early Church at morning and
evening, the Angelus bell, as it was called,” pealed “forth from every
steeple and bell-turret in the Kingdom, and as the sound floated
through the surrounding neighbourhood, the monk in his cell, the baron
in his hall, the village maiden in her cottage, and the labourer
in the field, reverently knelt and recited the allotted prayer in
remembrance of Christ’s Incarnation for us.”
CHAPTER VIII
CHURCH FESTIVALS
The round of Church festivals was followed with a lively interest by
the people of every English parish. From Advent to Advent the sequence
of ecclesiastical feasts was calculated to bring before the minds of
practical Christians the great drama of the Redemption of mankind; and
the joyous participation of the people in the various celebrations was
outwardly marked by the decoration of their churches for the greater
solemnities with hangings and banners, with garlands of flowers, and
with the multitude of lights which on those days were set burning
before altars and statues.
The ecclesiastical year began always with _Advent_--the time of
preparation for the coming of our Lord into the world, when the
old-world yearning of the nations for the promised Redeemer was ever
brought prominently by the Church before the Christian people in the
words of the liturgy, from the _Ad Te levavi_, “To Thee have I lifted
up mine eyes,” of the Introit for the first Sunday, to the _Hodie
scietis_, “Know ye to-day that the Lord will come, and will bring you
salvation,” of the Christmas Eve. In a fifteenth-century English book
of _Instructions for Parish Priests_, it is said that fasting during
Advent was counselled, though not ordered by the Church. The Church
of Rome kept this practice of preparing strictly for the festival of
Christmas, and priests, in the opinion of the writer, ought to follow
this example. Lay people were free of any obligation, but those who
intended to receive Holy Communion on the Nativity were to be strongly
urged to prepare by this salutary fasting. The festival of Christmas
was celebrated with the customary three Masses--the first at midnight,
preceded by Matins; the second in the early morning; and the third at
the usual time of nine or ten. In many places in the time of Christmas,
a religious play suitable to the season enlivened the winter evenings,
and impressed on the minds of the people the chief incidents in the
history of our Lord’s birth. The coming of the Kings on the Epiphany
was also a subject lending itself to picturesque illustration,
which never failed to delight the simple-minded parish audience of
pre-Reformation days. At Great Yarmouth, year after year, the people
kept the _Feast of the Star_; and such entries occur in the accounts as
“for making a new Star,” “for leading the Star,” “for a new balk-line
to the Star, and ryving the same.” Manship, in his _History_ of that
town, says that “in the chancel aisles were performed those sacred
dramas intended to give the people a living representation of the
leading occurrences narrated in Holy Writ, and of the principal events
in our Lord’s life.”
On the feast of Holy Innocents, or, as it was called frequently,
“Childermas,” there was kept a feast which may seem somewhat strange
to our notions, but which our forefathers evidently loved well. It was
the festival of the boy-bishop, attended by his youthful ministers.
Sometimes the celebration was associated with the name of St.
Nicholas, and was thus kept on December 6th, rather than on the 28th;
but the method of the festival was the same. Dr. Rock, in _The Church
of our Fathers_, has described this pageant for us. In every cathedral,
collegiate, and parish church the boys of the place--and in those days
every little boy either sang or served about the altar at church--met
together on the eve of the feast, and chose of their number a “St.
Nicholas and his clerks.” This boy-bishop and his ministers then sang
the first Vespers of the Saint, and in the evening walked all round
the parish making collections for their feast. All who could afford
it asked them into their houses and made them presents of various
kinds. In 1299 Edward I., for instance, attended Vespers in his chapel
at Heton, near Newcastle-on-Tyne, at which the “boy-bishop” and his
fellows sang, and he gave them 40s. for singing before him; and the
_Northumberland Household Book_ tells us that “My Lord useth and
accustomyth to gyfe yerly, upon Saynt Nicolas--even, if he kepe chapell
for Saynt Nicolas, to the mester of his children of his chapell for one
of the childeren of his chapell, yerely 6_s._ 8_d._”
It was upon this feast that, in memory of the Holy Innocents, some
father of a family in the parish would make an entertainment for
his children, and invite those of his neighbours to join in the
festivities. In such a case, of course, the “Nicholas and his clerks”
sat in the most honoured place. The _Golden Legend_ relates a story
illustrating the practice: “A man, for the love of his sone that wente
to scole for to lerne, halowed every year the fest of Saynt Nicholas
moche solemnly. On a tyme it happed that the fader had doo make redy
the dyner, and called many clerkes to this diner.”
It was, however, on Holy Innocents’ day that the boy-bishop, chosen
on the feast of St. Nicholas, played his part in a set of pontificals
provided for him. At St. Paul’s, at York Minster, and at Lincoln, we
find recorded in the inventories pontificals provided for his use. In
the parish church of St. Mary-at-Hill, in London, the churchwardens
paid for “a myter for a bysshop at St. Nicholas tyde.” At this parish
church, too, there was a store of copes, a mitre, and a crosier for the
boy-bishop; whilst at St. Mary’s, Sandwich, the inventory contains “a
lytyll chasebyll for Seynt Nicholas bysschop,” and at York there were
“nine copes” for the boy attendants.
On the feast of Holy Innocents the boy-bishop was frequently expected
to preach a sermon, which had been written for him. One such, written
for a boy in St. Paul’s school by Erasmus, is still extant. Until
Archbishop Peckham’s day the “little Nicholas and his clerks” used
to take a conspicuous place in the services of the church during
the octave of the feast, but in 1279 that prelate decreed that the
celebration should be confined to the one day of the feast only. That
this feast was popular, and that our forefathers delighted in coming
to their parish churches to witness their children associated in this
ceremonial around God’s altar, may be judged from the statute of Roger
de Mortival, Bishop of Sarum in 1319, in which he forbids too much
treating of the children, and orders that the crowd at the procession
are not to hustle or hinder the boys as they do their ceremonies.
Hardly had the festivals connected with Christmas been celebrated,
than on the second day of February the _Feast of the Purification_,
known as _Candlemas Day_, was kept. From the earliest times our English
forefathers gathered together in their parish churches on that day,
for the blessing of the candles and for the procession with lighted
tapers, as the symbols of the burning love of their hearts for Christ,
and in memory of the presentation of our Blessed Lord in the Temple.
Ælfric, the Saxon homilist, speaks of the feast in his days, and the
celebration remained the same till the change of religion.
“Be it known also to every one,” he says, “that it is appointed in the
ecclesiastical observances, that we on this day bear our lights to
church and let them there be blessed: and that we should go afterwards
with the light among God’s houses and sing the hymn that is thereto
appointed. Though some men cannot sing, they can, nevertheless, bear
the light in their hands; for on this day was Christ the true light
borne to the temple, Who redeemed us from darkness, and bringeth us to
the Eternal Light, who liveth and ruleth for ever.”
ASH WEDNESDAY.--The great fast of Lent, which was a time devoted to
penance for sins, and in which sorrow for offences was increased by
the continual memory of Christ’s suffering and death for mankind, was
ushered in by what was known as _Shrove-tide_. This was the week that
followed _Quinquagesima_ Sunday, the Sunday before Ash Wednesday.
As its name imports, it was the time when Christians were urged to
prepare their souls for the weeks of Lenten penance by confessing
their sins to God through their parish priest, or, as they said,
shriving themselves. “Now is a clean and holy tide drawing nigh,” said
a homilist, “in which we should make amends for our heedlessness; let,
therefore, every Christian man come unto his confessor, and confess his
secret guilt.”
[Illustration: THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE]
On _Ash Wednesday_ in each parish church, before the celebration of
Mass, ashes were blessed, and each man, woman, and child came and knelt
before their priest to have them strewn upon their heads, whilst his
words reminded them that they “were dust, and unto dust they would
return.” After the distribution of the ashes, according to an ancient
English custom, if there were another church in the same district, all
the people went to it in procession, and, having made there “a stay,”
or _statio_, for prayer, returned to their own church for Mass. With
Ash Wednesday began the strict fast of Lent, which had to be kept on
all days except Sundays; and even then no meat was permitted. On the
week-days the fast was not allowed to be broken till after Mass and
Vespers had been said in the parish church; that is, before eleven or
twelve o’clock. The Anglo-Saxon _Ecclesiastical Institutes_ speaks of
those days of Lent as “the tithing-days of the year,” which all good
Christians should render to God most strictly. “Every Sunday at this
holy tide,” says the same authority, “people should go to housel,” a
practice which was not preserved in the later middle ages. The time of
Lent was also known as the “holy time,” and unnecessary and distracting
business was as far as possible avoided. Thus, for instance, the
assizes were prohibited during the whole period.
THE LENTEN CURTAIN.--From the evening before the first Sunday of
Lent till the Thursday before Easter, what was known as the “Lenten
curtain,” or “Lenten veil,” hung down in all parish churches between
the chancel and the nave. It was one of the “ornaments” which the
parishioners were bound to provide, and the churchwardens’ accounts
contain many references to it, both as to its provision and as to the
expenses of erection. It was made of white stuff or linen, and hid
the sanctuary from the people, except at the reading of the Gospel
and until the _Orate Fratres_, when it was pulled aside. It was also
drawn back on all feast days kept during Lent. The order that the
confessions of women should be heard “outside the veil,” in the sight
of all but out of hearing, refers to the Lenten veil. “The veil,” says
the _Liber Festivalis_, “that all the Lent has been drawn between the
altar and the choir betokeneth the prophecy of Christ’s Passion, which
was hidden and unknown till these days.” But in these three last days
of Holy Week it “is done away (with), and the altar openly schowed to
all men; for on these days Christ suffered openly His Passion.”
Upon the first Monday in Lent all the crucifixes and images of every
kind, both large and small, were covered with white cloths; or in the
case of those niches which had their own wooden doors, these were
closed till the eve of Easter. The linen or silk coverings were worked
or painted with a red cross, and the “red cross” had its peculiar
significance in the ritual of the English Church. The procession on
each Sunday in Lent was not allowed to be headed by the ordinary _Crux
processionalis_, but a wooden cross painted red, in reference to the
shedding of our Lord’s blood upon the cross in the throes of His
crucifixion, was substituted for it. That the practice had a special
meaning to our forefathers seems to be the case, since Sir Thomas More
walked to execution, as Cresacre More says, “carrying in his hands a
red cross.” Langland, too, in his vision makes “Conscience” say that
“These aren Cristes armes.
Hus colours and hus cote-armure, and he that cometh so blody,
Hit is Crist with his crois, conqueror of crystine.”
PALM SUNDAY.--The dramatic ceremonies of Holy Week commenced with those
of Palm Sunday. “This week now begun,” says an old fifteenth-century
writer, “is called _penosa_, because people, in this more than in any
other week, keep their sins before their minds, and mortify themselves
in their sorrow.” From the earliest times, as Ælfric tells us, it was
the custom in England on this Sunday that “the priest should bless
palm-twigs and distribute them so blessed to the people,” and that then
the people should go forth in procession with him, singing the “hymn
which the Jewish people sang before Christ when He was approaching to
His Passion.” The so-called “palms” in England were probably willow,
box, and yew, charges for which appear in the churchwardens’ accounts.
In fact, one sixteenth-century authority states that the yew trees so
frequently to be found in the neighbourhood of churches were planted in
the churchyards of England to furnish the yew-branches which usually
served for palms on Palm Sunday.
Dr. Rock thus describes the procession and other ceremonies in the
first part of the service on this day--
“In many parts of the country a large and splendidly ornamented tent
was set up at the furthermost end of the close or burial-ground,
and thither, early in service time, was carried by two priests,
accompanied with lights, a sort of beautiful shrine of open work,
within which hung the Blessed Sacrament, enclosed in a rich cup or
pix. The long-drawn procession, gay and gladsome with its palms and
flowers, went forth, and halted now and then, as it winded round the
outside of the church to make a station. While they were going from
the North side towards the East, and had just ended the Gospel read
at the first of these stations, the shrine with the Sacrament,” borne
by priests under a canopy, “surrounded with lights in lanterns and
streaming banners, and preceded by a silver cross and by a thurifer
with incense, was borne forward, so that they might meet it as it
were; and our Lord was hailed by the singers chanting _En rex venit
mansuetus_. Kneeling lowly down and kissing the ground, they saluted
the Sacrament again and again, in many appropriate sentences out of
Holy Writ; and the red cross withdrew from the presence of the silver
crucifix.”
The procession then moved forward in parish churches to the churchyard
cross, where it halted, and there, falling down, all, priests and
people, worshipped Him who had died on the cross for the sins of men.
Then palms and flowers were strewn round about it, and after the
Passion had been read, palms were brought and the churchyard cross was
wreathed as for a victory, in memory of Christ’s triumph over death.
From the cross the procession now went to the closed door of the
church for the singing of the _Gloria laus_--the joyous imitation of
the hymns the Jews sung on that day when bringing our Saviour to the
gates of Jerusalem. When this part of the ceremony was ended, the
church doors flew open, and the priests who bore the shrine with the
Blessed Sacrament, held their sacred burden aloft in the doorway, “so
that all who went in had to go under this shrine, and in this way the
procession came back into the church, each one bowing his head in token
of reverence and obedience” as he passed beneath the Sacrament.
The fourth and last “station” of the Palm Sunday procession was held
before the great Rood, from which the large curtain, which all Lent had
hidden the figure of the crucified Saviour, was now drawn aside. At the
sight of the crucifix the celebrant and his assistants, together with
all the people, knelt and saluted it thrice with the words _Ave Rex
noster, fili David, Redemptor_. A fifteenth-century preacher, giving
only a brief instruction on this day, because, as he notes, of the
length of the service, says--
“Holy Church this day in a sollempne procession makes in mynd of that
procession of our Lord to Jerusalem.... And as they songen and diden
worship to Christ in ther procession, rythe so we this day worchep the
crosse in our procession, thries kneeling to the cross in worchep, in
ye mynde of Hym that was for us done on the crosse, and we welcome Him
with songe in the chirch as they welcomed Him to the citie Jerusalem.”
The true inward meaning of this great act of worship done to the cross
at this time was carefully taught to the people. The author of _Dives
and Pauper_ has the passage which follows, about the worship of the
Rood on Palm Sunday--
“_Dives._--On Palm Sunday at the procession the priest draweth up
the veil before the rode and falleth down to the ground with all the
people, and sayeth thrice thus: ‘_Ave Rex noster_’-‘Hail be Thou our
King,’ and so he worships the thing as King.
“_Pauper._--_Absit!_ God forbid! He speaks not to the image that the
carpenter hath made and the painter painted, unless the priest be
a fool; for the stock and stone was never King; but he speaketh to
Him that died upon the cross for us all--to Him that is King of all
things.”
For this and the other ceremonies of Holy Week in many parishes
additional help was, if possible, obtained by the clergy and people,
and the churchwardens’ accounts frequently show items of expense under
this head. In one case we have the sum of 8_d._ charged for “the old
friar who came to sing for the parish.” At St. Michael’s, Cornhill,
the wardens paid for “two clerks for singing” at this time; and at
St. Peter Cheap, in 1447, there is an entry: “Item--payde on Palme
Sundaye for bread and wine to the readers of the Passion, 3_d._” This
refers, of course, to the chanting of the Gospel according to St.
Matthew, which took place during the Mass, that on this day followed
the unveiling of the Rood. Before evensong on Palm Sunday the great
crucifix was again covered with the veil, and it so remained hidden
until the morning service of Good Friday.
TENEBRÆ.--“On Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday you shall come,” says
a fourteenth-century writer, “to Matins, which we call _tenebræ_.”
At this service a triangular candlestick with twenty-five candles
was placed in the choir. This candle-stand was called in England
the “tenebræ,” or Lenten “herse,” and it is so named in many church
accounts. It was one of the ornaments which had to be paid for by the
parish, and it was sometimes known as the “Judas” candle.
In a sermon intended to explain the meaning of the peculiar ceremonies
of “tenebræ,” the preacher says--
“God men and wymine, as ye see theise thre days for to service ye
go in ye evontyde in darknesse. Wherfore hit is callyd with you
‘tenabulles;’ but holy churche calleth hit _tenebras_, that is to say,
‘derknesse.’ Than why this service is done in darkness holy fathers
wrytuth to us thre skylles.” Then, after giving these reasons, he
continues, “Wherefore to this service is no bell irongon, bot a sownde
makuth of tre, whereby uche criston man and woman is enformede for
to comon to this service withowtyn noyse makyng, and alle that thei
spek on going, shall sown of ye tree that Cryste was done onne. Also
at this service is sette on herce with candulles brennyng aftur as
ye use is, yn some place more, yn some place lesse, the which bene
quenchyt uch one after othur in showing how Christes discipules stolne
from hym. Yet when all be quenched one levyth leight, the which is
borne away a wyle yt the clerkes syngone hymis and ye versus, ye which
betokeneth ye whymmen yt made lamentation at Crystus Sepulcur....
Then aftur this, ye candul is brougt agayne and all othur at that ben
lygte; ye which betokeneth that Christus y^t was for a gwile dede and
hid in hys sepulchre, but soon aftur he was from dethe to lyfe and
gave the lyghte of lyfe to all them that weren quenchud....
“The strokys that ye prestes geveth on the boke betokynneth the
clappus of thunder yt Christ brake helle gattys wyth when he com
thedur and spoylud helle.”
MAUNDY, OR SHEER THURSDAY.--On Thursday in Holy Week was commemorated
the Institution of the Blessed Eucharist by our Lord in His last
Supper. The _Liber Festivalis_ makes the following explanation of the
feast, for the benefit of those who ask for the reason of such things--
“First if men aske why _Schere_ Thursday is so called, say y^t in holy
churche it is called Our Lord’s Soper day. For that day he soupud with
hys disciple oponly.... Hit is also in English tong ‘Schere Thursday,’
for in owr elde fadur days men wold on y^t day makon scheron hem
honest, and dode here hedes ond clypon here berdes and poll here
hedes, ond so makon hem honest agen Estur day; for on ye moro (Good
Friday) yei woldon done here bodies non ease, but suffur penaunce, in
mynde of Hym y^t suffrud so harte for hem. On Saturday they myghte
mote whyle, whate for longe service, what for other occupacion that
they haddon for the wake comynge and after mote was no tyme for haly
daye.... Therefore as John Belette telluth and techuth, on ‘Schere
Thursday’ a man shall dodun his heres and clypponde his berde, and
a prest schal schave his crowne so that there schall no thynge bene
betwene God Almythy and hym.”
_The Maundy._--On this day in all cathedral churches, in the greater
parish churches, and even in some of the smaller ones, the feet of
thirteen poor people were washed with great solemnity, and they were
fed and served at their meal by the dignitaries of the place, in memory
of our Lord’s act of humility in washing the feet of His disciples.
This “Maundy” was kept also in England by kings and nobles, and even by
private individuals, who on this day entertained Christ’s poor in their
houses.
_The Absolution._--Thursday in Holy Week was also known to our
forefathers as “absolution day,” because, after tenebræ, in the
evening, in larger churches, the people knelt before the penitentiary
in acknowledgment of their repentance of sin, and received from him
a token of God’s acceptance by a rod being placed on their heads.
Sometimes this voluntary humiliation and discipline was performed on
Good Friday, and the rods touched the hands of the penitent. It was to
this rite Sir Thomas More refers in his book against Tyndall, where he
says--
“Tyndale is as lothe, good, tender pernell, to take a lyttle penaunce
of the prieste, as the lady was to come any more to dyspelying that
wept even for tender heart twoo dayes after when she talked of it,
that the priest had on Good Friday with the dyspelyng rodde beaten her
hard on her lylye white hands.”
The church accounts sometimes refer to the purchase of rods for this
purpose by the wardens.
_The Sepulchre._--The service of Maundy Thursday morning included the
consecration of two hosts, besides that which the celebrant received
at the Communion of the Mass. At the conclusion of the service these
two hosts were carried to some becoming place till the following day,
when one was used in the Mass of the Presanctified, and the other was
placed in a pyx and put along with the cross, which had just been
kissed and venerated, into what was known as the “Easter Sepulchre.” On
the afternoon of Good Friday it was customary for people in the towns
to make visits to the various churches to pray at these sepulchres.
There is no expense more constantly recorded in all the parochial
accounts than that for the erection and taking down of the Easter
Sepulchre. Generally, no doubt, it was a more or less elaborate,
although temporary, erection of wood, hung over with the most precious
curtains and hangings which the church possessed, some of which were
even frequently left for this special purpose. Here in this “chapel of
repose” the Blessed Sacrament was placed at the conclusion of the Mass
of the Presanctified, and here the priest and people watched and prayed
before it till early in the morning of Easter day.
[Illustration: EASTER SEPULCHRE, ARNOLD, NOTTS]
There are, however, in England some interesting instances of permanent
“tombs” being erected to serve as the Easter Sepulchre. Some people in
their wills left money to have a structure for the “altar of repose,”
worthy of its purpose, built over the spot on which they themselves
desired to be buried.
After the morning service of Maundy Thursday, the high altar, and then
all the altars in the church, were stripped of their ornaments and
cloths and were left bare, in memory of the way our Blessed Lord was
stripped of His garments before His crucifixion. In the evening of the
same day all the altars were washed with wine and blessed water, the
minister saying at each the prayer of the Saint to whom the altar was
dedicated; then he and all the clerks, having devoutly kissed the stone
slab, retired in silence.
GOOD FRIDAY.--The chief feature in the morning service of Good Friday
was undoubtedly the “adoration of the Cross” and the ceremonial kissing
of it, better known in England as the “Creeping to the Cross.” The
meaning of this act of worship is set out in _Dives and Pauper_ so
clearly that there can be no doubt as to what our forefathers intended
by it.
“_Pauper._--In the same manner lewd men should do their worship before
the thing, making his prayer before the thing and not to the thing.
“_Dives._--On the other hand, on Good Friday above all in holy Church
men creep to the church and worship the cross.
“_Pauper._--That is so, but not as thou meanest: the cross that we
creep to and worship so highly that time is Christ himself that died
on the cross that day for our sins and our sake. For the shape of man
is a cross, and as He hung upon the rood He was a very cross. He is
that cross, as all doctors say, to whom we pray and say, _Ave crux,
spes unica_--‘Hail be thou Cross, our only hope,’ etc. And as Bede
saith; for as much as Christ was most despised of mankind on Good
Fryday, therefore Holy Church hath ordeyned that on the Good Fryday
men should do Him that great high worship that day, not to the crosse
that the priest holdeth in his hand, but to Hym that died for us all
that day upon the crosse.”
Archbishop Simon Mepham (1327-1333) issued a special Constitution as to
the way in which this solemn day was to be kept throughout England.
“We order and ordain,” he says, “that this holy day of Good Friday, on
which our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ after many stripes laid down
His precious life on the Cross for the salvation of men, according to
the custom of the Church should be passed in reading, silence, prayer
and fasting with tearful sorrow.”
For which reason this Synod forbade all servile work on this great
day; the archbishop adding, however, that this did not apply to the
poor, and that the rich might show their charity to the poor by aiding
them in work upon their land. The canonist Lyndwood points out,
in commenting on this provision, that by “silence” the archbishop
probably intends to prohibit all shouting or noise, all loud talking
or disputes, which might interfere with the solemnity of this
commemoration.
HOLY SATURDAY.--The service of this day probably began at a late hour,
as, according to primitive custom, it was the Office of a Vigil. The
first act in the long Office was the blessing of the new fire, which
had previously been struck by a steel out of flint. After a candle
had been lit at the new fire, the procession passed from outside the
western door, where this first portion of the ceremony had been
held, into the church for the blessing of the _Paschal Candle_. The
preparation of this symbol of “the risen Lord,” with the five glorified
grains of incense, to remind all of His five sacred wounds, was one
of the yearly parochial works. The charges for it are to be found in
every book of church accounts: money was collected for the purpose,
people gave presents towards it, and in some places--at St. Dunstan’s,
Canterbury, for instance--goods in kind were placed in the hands of
the wardens, in order that the hiring-out of them might pay for the
annual “paschal.” To this practice of having their annual “paschal,”
the people clung somewhat tenaciously on the change of religion; and as
late as 1586, at Great Yarmouth, charges were made by the churchwardens
for taking down and putting up “the Paschal.”
The _Paschal_, apparently, was commonly a lofty construction: a tall
thick piece of wood painted to represent a candle, and ornamented,
rested in the socket of the candlestick, and on the top of this, at
a great height, was the real candle. For some reason not known, the
wooden part was called by our English ancestors the “Judas of the
Paschal.” On this day also, in every parish church, the font was
hallowed with impressive and symbolic ceremonies.
EASTER DAY.--“On this day,” says an English fourteenth-century sermon
book--“on this day all the people receive the Holy Communion.” This
was apparently the universal custom; and although in preparation for
this Easter duty the parishioners were advised to go to their parish
priest at the beginning of Lent, there are indications that during the
last days of Holy Week there was sometimes a press of penitents. At
St. Mary’s, Dover, for example, in 1538 and 1539, the churchwardens
enter in their expenses, “Item--paid to two priests at Easter to help
shrive--2_s._” And in 1540 the entry runs, “Item--paid to three priests
to help shrive and to minister on Maunday Thursday, Easter even, and
Easter day, 2_s._ 4_d._”
Early in the morning of Easter, at the first streak of dawn, the people
hastened to the church to be present when the Blessed Sacrament was
brought by the priests from the sepulchre to the usual place where it
hung over the altar. Sometimes the image of our Lord, which had been
placed with it in the figurative tomb of the Easter sepulchre, was
made movable, and on Easter day was placed on the altar in a standing
position. This probably was the case at St. Mary’s, Cambridge, where
in 1537 the churchwardens paid “for mending of the Vice for the
Resurrection.” Generally, however, the crucifix was brought out of the
place of repose and taken to some side altar, and there once more, as
on Good Friday, all clergy and people knelt to honour it and kiss it.
This was the practice in many large churches, and a description of the
“Resurrection figure” is given in the _Rites of Durham_.
“There was in the Abbye church of Duresme,” says the writer, “a very
solemn service uppon Easter day, between three and four of the cloche
in the morninge in honour of the Resurrection, where two of the oldest
monkes came to the sepulchre, being sett upp upon Good Friday after
the Passion, all covered with red velvett and embrodered with gold,
and then did sence it, either monke with a pair of silver sencers
sitting on their knees before the Sepulchre. Then they both rising
came to the sepulchre, out of the which, with great devotion and
reverence, they tooke a marvelous beautiful image of our Saviour,
representing the Resurrection, with a cross in his hand, in the breast
whereof was enclosed in bright christall the Holy Sacrament of the
Altar, through the which christall the Blessed Host was conspicuous to
the beholders. Then, after the elevation of the said picture, carryed
by the said two monkes uppon a faire velvett cushion all embrodered,
singinge the anthem of _Christus resurgens_, they brought it to the
high altar, settinge that on the midst thereof, whereon it stood, the
two monkes kneelinge on their knees before the altar and senceing
it, all the time that the rest of the whole quire was in singinge
the aforesaid anthem of _Christus resurgens_. The which anthem being
ended, the two monkes took up the cushions and the picture from the
altar, supportinge it betwixt them, proceeding in procession from
the high altar to the South quire door, where there was four antient
gentlemen belonginge to the prior, appointed to attend their cominge,
holding up a moste rich canopye of purple velvett, tacked round about
with redd silk and gold fringe; and at every corner did stand one
of these gentlemen to beare it over the said image, with the Holy
Sacrament carried by two monkes round about the church, the whole
quire waiting uppon it with goodly torches and great store of other
lights till they came to the high altar againe, whereon they did place
the said image, there to remaine untill the Ascension day.”
An English Easter custom is referred to in more than one book of
sermons.
“Fryndys,” says one preacher, “you schall understonde that hyt ys a
custome in plasys of worschyp, and in many other dyvers plasys, that
at thys solempe fest of Estern, the whyche ys ye day and fest of the
glorious Resurexcion of our Lorde Ihesu, now to put owghte and remove
ye fire owghte of ye hall wt ye blakke wynture brondys defyllyd and
made blakke wt vyle smoke, and instede of ye seyde fyre and blakke
wynter brondys to strewe ye hall wythe green rushys and other swete
flewres.”
And another preacher adds the moral--
“Shewing example to all men and women that they should in like wise
clense the house of their soules.”
Langland gives us a slight sketch of an Easter morning in England as he
knew it in the fourteenth century.
“Men rang to ye resurrection and with that ich awakede
and kallyd Kytte my wyf, and Kalote my daughter,
A-ryse and go reverence, Godes resurrection,
and creep on knees to he cryos and cusse hit, for
And ryghtfullokest a relyk. Non riccher juwel on erthe
for Godes blesside body hit bar for oure bote
And hit afereth ye feonde for such is ye myghte
may no grysliche gost glyde ther hit shadeweth.”
ROGATION DAYS.--During the entire week of Easter all work not actually
necessary was ordered to be laid aside, that the people might have
time for spiritual rejoicing. During this time also, in most of the
larger churches, after Evensong, a procession with all the ministers
vested in albs was formed to the newly hallowed font, which, wreathed
with flowers and evergreens, was censed by the parish priest, and a
“station” for prayer was held at that spot.
On the three days before the feast of our Lord’s Ascension, the
ancient practice of going in procession singing the litany of the
Saints was kept up in every church, unless it was one of the churches
in a cathedral city, for in that case the various parishes had to
attend at the Mother church and join together in one procession. These
“rogations,” as they were called, passed out of the church precincts,
and wound their way about streets or country roads of the parish,
unless bad weather confined them to the church itself.
“Gode men,” says the _Liber Festivalis_, “theis thre dayes suying,
Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, ye schall faston and com to chyrche,
husbond and wyfe and servaunde, for alle we be syners and neduth to
have mercy of God.... So holy Chyrch ordaineth yt none schall excuson
hym from theise processions yt may godely ben there.”
The celebrated Richard FitzRalph, Archbishop of Armagh, in 1346, when
Dean of Lichfield, preached to the people at St. Nicholas’ Chapel on
the meaning and obligation of these days of intercession, or rogation,
and explained why men prayed to the Saints, and why they sang their
_Miserere_ to God. He also told the people why the cross went at the
head of the procession, and why the image of a dragon with its tail out
was carried the two first days before the procession and the third day
without its tail after the procession. It is to those standards that
the Sarum processional refers in regard to these litanies, and to the
same are to be referred the items to be found in church accounts, such
as those of Salisbury, where in 1462 boys are paid “to carry the poles
and standards on Rogation days.”
The rest of the Christian year, with its round of feasts, does not here
require to be specially noted. The celebration of one differed from
that of another merely in the degree of splendour with which the people
decked their churches and brought forth their precious vestments. At
Whitsuntide and Corpus Christi day; on Assumption and on All Hallows,
as well as on its own dedication day, each church endeavoured to outdo
its neighbour by the splendour of its services. In the processions of
Corpus Christi day, not unfrequently several churches united their
forces together, and made a brave show in honour of the most Blessed
Sacrament with their various processional crosses and banners, torches
and thuribles, not to speak of the amalgamated choirs and the throng
of devout worshippers who accompanied the Sacred Host in a triumphant
progress through the streets of our English cities, or along the roads
and lanes of rural England.
CHAPTER IX
THE SACRAMENTS
This account of parochial life in pre-Reformation England requires
some brief description of the Sacramental system, which had its
effect on every soul in the district. From the time of his baptism as
a child of the Church, till his body was laid to rest in its tomb,
each parishioner was the constant recipient of some one of those
mysterious rites, by which, as he was taught by the Church and as he
believed, God’s grace was received into his soul to enable him to
lead the life of a good Christian. In the administration of these
Sacraments, nothing is more clear in the teaching of the Church of the
Middle Ages than that there was to be no question of money. They--the
Sacraments--were spiritual things, and to sell them for fees would be
plain simony, which was prohibited by every law of God and man. If
the administrator was permitted to take an offering, it was only with
the plain understanding that the payment was made in regard to the
service rendered, for which the recipient desired to make some return;
and that the Sacrament should be given without the fee. In the case
of such a Sacrament as Penance, for example, where the acceptance of
a fee or offering might lead to a misunderstanding of the judicial
character of the rite, and so bring it into contempt, the reception
of money was altogether prohibited by the ecclesiastical authorities,
and any such abuse was sternly repressed. Thus, to take an example,
in the acts of the Synod of Ely in 1364, the bishop, Simon Langham,
says, “We have heard, and greatly grieve to have done so, that some
priests exact money from the laity for the administration of penance or
other Sacraments, and that some, for the sake of filthy lucre, impose
penances” which bring in money to them. “These we altogether prohibit.”
The Sacraments, according to the teaching of the Church, which every
one who pretended to be a practical Christian was bound to receive,
were Baptism, Confirmation, Penance, Holy Eucharist, Extreme Unction,
and in the case of those desiring to marry, Matrimony. Something may,
therefore, usefully be said about each of these.
BAPTISM.--“To those coming into the _mare magnum_ of this world,” says
the legate Othobono, “Baptism must be regarded as the first plank of
safety in this sea of many shipwrecks to support us to the port of
salvation.” It is, he continues, the gate through which all have to
enter to enjoy the grace of the other Sacraments, and for this reason
“any error in regard to it is most dangerous,” and the possibility of
any child dying without receiving the saving waters is to be zealously
guarded against. Because of the priceless efficacy of the Sacrament,
every parish priest was warned to teach his people in the vernacular
the form of properly administering it, in case of need when a priest
could not be had. On this matter also the Archdeacon in the time of
his visitation of a parish was to inquire diligently whether these
instructions had been given, and whether the parishioners generally
knew how to baptize in case of need.
The importance which the Church attached to this Sacrament is well
illustrated by a Constitution of St. Edmund of Canterbury, which orders
that when the expectation of childbirth becomes imminent, all parents
should be warned to prepare a vessel and water to be ready at hand, in
case some sudden need should require the administration of baptism.
Ordinarily speaking, there can be no doubt that the old English
practice was that every child should, if possible, be baptized in the
parish church on the day of birth. In the ancient “proofs of age,”
this practice is evident; one example will be sufficient. In 1360 it
was requisite to prove the age of John, son and heir of Adam de Welle,
and the first witness who was called, said that “he knew that he was
born on the eve of St. Bartholomew the Apostle, because he was with his
master who stood god-parent to the child on that day, which was Sunday
21 years ago.” Another witness adds, that it was in the evening that
the baptism took place; and another that it was performed by John de
Scrubby, the chaplain.
There was, however, an exception. There were two days for public
baptism in the church, namely, Holy Saturday and the Saturday before
Pentecost, on which days the font in every parish church was solemnly
blessed. Apparently among English mothers in the thirteenth century,
this day was regarded as unlucky, and was avoided by them as far as
possible for the baptism of their children, a superstition that the
two legates Otho and Othobono endeavoured to eradicate. It became
consequently in England the practice, if children were born within
eight days of either of these two vigils of Easter or Pentecost, that
their baptism should be administered after the blessing of the font,
if there were no danger in the delay. In the case of the baptism being
held over, however, halfway between the day of birth and the day of
baptism, the child was to have all the accompanying rites administered
except only the actual baptism.
One of the demands of the Devon “rebels” in the time of the religious
changes in Edward VI.’s reign had reference to this question of
baptism. “We will,” it ran, “that our curates shall minister the
Sacrament of Baptism at all times, as well as in the week-day as on
the holy-day.” To this Cranmer, in his reply, says, “Every Easter and
Whitsuneven, until this time, the fonts were hallowed in every church
and many collects and other prayers were read for them that were
baptized. But alas! in vain, and as it were a mocking with God; for at
those times, except it were by chance, none were baptized, but all were
baptized before.”
The offering for the administration of baptism was strictly voluntary.
Whenever any difficulty arose between the parson and his people on
this matter, the bishop always took the opportunity of laying down as
the common law of the Church that nothing could be exacted. Bishop
Grandisson, for instance, in 1355, in a case at Moreton Hampstead,
declared “that no priest could deny, or presume to deny, any Sacrament
to his parishioners by demanding money, but that he might afterwards
take what the people chose to offer him.”
[Illustration: SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM]
The reverence with which our forefathers regarded whatever had been
used for any sacred purpose is illustrated in a matter connected with
this Sacrament. Bishop Quevil, in the Synod of Exeter in 1287, states
that when in case of necessity a child had been baptized in its own
home, the vessel that had been used should either be destroyed by fire
or given to the church to be used for ecclesiastical purposes; and that
the water should either be thrown on the fire or taken to the church
and poured down the “sacrarium.” Myrc, in his _Instructions_, gives
this same order--
“Another way thou might to yet
In a vessel to cryston hyt,
And when scho hath do ryght so
Watere and vessel brenne hem bo,
Other brynge hyt to the chyrche anon
And cast hyt to the font ston.”
Bishop Quevil, in the same Synod, also states the law of the Church
as to god-parents. For a boy, two men and one woman were permissible;
and similarly for a girl, two women and one man. All others could only
be regarded as witnesses, and did not incur the bond of spiritual
relationship as true god-parents and their god-children did.
Before passing on, a few words must be said as to the Font. According
to the Constitutions of the English Church, it was to be made of stone,
and to be covered. It was on no account to be used for any other
purpose, even ecclesiastical. For this reason, like the Holy Oils, it
was to be kept under lock and key. It was the privilege of a parochial
church alone to have a font, and the construction of one, even in a
Chapel of Ease, required the leave not only of the bishop, but also of
the rector of the parish. Thus, to take an instance, about the middle
of the fourteenth century Lord Beauchamp desired to have a font in his
chapel at Beauchamp. The bishop gave his consent, but on condition that
the approval of the rector was first obtained.
CHURCHING OF WOMEN.--Immediately connected with the question of baptism
is that old Catholic practice of the churching of women. The rite was
probably suggested by the prescriptions of the law in Leviticus, and it
was used in the Greek as well as in the Latin Church. The priest leads
the woman into the church, saying, “Come into the temple of God. Adore
the Son of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who has given thee fruitfulness
in childbearing.” For churchings, as for marriages and burials, the
general fee was supposed to be 1_d._; but most people who could afford
it made a larger offering. The fee for churching is specially named
by Bishop Grandisson amongst those which a parson should not demand,
but which all who could, ought to give willingly. Amongst the goods of
St. Mary the Great, Cambridge, in the churchwardens’ accounts is one:
“Item. A clothe of tappestry werk for chirching of wifes, lyned with
canvas, _in ecclesia_.” This, no doubt, would be a carpet upon which
the woman knelt before the altar.
CONFIRMATION was, as Myrc says, “in lewde mennes menynge is i-called
the bys(h)opynge,” because it is and can be given only by bishops.
Strong pressure was brought to bear upon the clergy to see that all
were rightly confirmed, and Archbishop Peckham, in 1280, forbade “any
one to be admitted to the Sacrament of our Lord’s body and blood unless
he had been confirmed, except when in danger of death.”
Bishop Woodlock of Winchester, in 1308, has a special Instruction on
the need of this Sacrament. Because he says, “our adversary the devil,
wishing to have us as companions in his perdition, attacks with all
his powers those who are baptized; our watchful Mother the Church has
added the Sacrament of Confirmation, that by the strength received in
it every Christian may resist with greater force our hostile enemy.”
Parents are consequently to be warned to have their children confirmed
as soon as possible. If they are not confirmed before they are three
years old, unless there has been no opportunity, the parents are to
be made to fast one day on bread and water in punishment of their
negligence. Moreover, since the Sacrament may not be given twice,
parents are to be bound to acquaint their children, when they grow up,
of the fact of their Confirmation. Priests are also to instruct their
people as to the law that through Confirmation there arises a spiritual
relationship, as in Baptism, between the god-parents and the children
and their parents.
The Synod of Oxford laid it down as the law, that any adult, when about
to be confirmed, must first go to receive the Sacrament of Penance from
his own parish priest and fast on the day of his Confirmation till
after its reception. Priests were required, also, to instruct their
people frequently on the need of getting their children confirmed as
soon as possible after they were baptized. This the canonist Lyndwood
considers would mean within six months or so. The Synod likewise warned
parents not to wait for the bishop to come to their own parish, but to
take their children to any neighbouring place, where they might have
heard that the bishop was to be found. And any parish within seven
miles was for this purpose to be considered “a neighbouring place.”
In Bishop Grandisson’s Register there is an example of his giving
confirmation, at St. Buryan’s, in 1336, to “children almost without
number (_quasi innumerabiles_) from the parish and the district round
about.”
[Illustration: SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION]
The honour and respect shown to the Chrism, which was used by the
bishop at Confirmation, is manifested by the “old silk cloth” and “a
clothe of syndale” used to carry the Chrismatory at St. Mary the Great,
Cambridge. The Chrism was also bound to be renewed every year, the
old being burnt and a new stock procured from what was consecrated on
Maundy Thursday, in every cathedral church. Moreover, when presenting
a child for Confirmation, the parents had to bring with them a linen
band, or napkin, to bind round its head after Confirmation, and cover
the place where it had been anointed. This band, called _Fascia_, or
“Chrism cloth,” was, according to various directions, to be left on
the head of the child three, seven, or eight days, when the lately
confirmed child was to be taken to the church by its parents, and there
have its forehead washed by the priest over the font. The _fasciæ
ligaturæ_, or “Chrism cloths,” were then to be either burnt or left
to the use of the church. Myrc, in his _Instructions_, thus gives the
usage--
“Whenne the chyldre confermed ben
Bondes a-bowte here neckes be lafte
That from hem schule not be rafte
Tyl at chyrche the eghthe day
The preste hymself take hem a-way
Thenne schale he wyth hys owne hondes
Brenne that ylke same bondes,
And wassche the chylde over the font
There he was anoynted in the front.”
Finally, the greatest care was taken not only to see that all
Christians should receive the Sacrament of Confirmation, but that there
should be no doubt as to its valid reception. An instance of this is
to be found in Bishop Brantyngham’s Register. In 1382, some unknown
person, calling himself a bishop, went about the diocese of Exeter
giving the tonsure, and confirming children, and in other ways, as the
bishop says, “putting his sickle into other men’s harvest.” Under these
circumstances, the parents of all children presented for confirmation
to this unknown person were to be warned from every parish pulpit to
come and give evidence, in order that it might be determined what
should be done.
PENANCE.--The Sacrament of Penance, or, in other words, “Confession,”
was obligatory on all at least once a year. The obligation, however,
was obviously not considered the full measure of duty for those who
desired to lead good Christian lives. Bishop Brunton, of Rochester,
in a sermon preached about the year 1388 on the first Sunday of Lent,
whilst laying down the law of Confession at the beginning of Lent,
strongly urges upon his audience the utility of frequently approaching
that Sacrament, but reminds them that a mere formal Confession without
a firm purpose of amendment is worse than useless.
In the Synod of Exeter, in 1287, parish priests are charged “to warn
their parishioners, and frequently to exhort them in their sermons,
to come to Confession to their own priest thrice in the year--at
Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, or at the very least at the beginning
of Lent.” The same synodal instruction warns the parish priests,
moreover, to grant permission generously and freely to any one wishing
to confess to some other priest, and it adds, “that if any one shall
not have confessed himself and communicated once in the year, he
shall be prohibited coming to the church, and when dead be refused
ecclesiastical burial.”
All, rich and poor, noble and simple, on coming to the Sacrament
of Penance, were treated alike. An old fifteenth-century book of
_Instructions_ says--
“Every body that shall be confessed, be he never so hye degree or
estate, ought to shew loweness in herte, lowenes in speche and lowenes
in body for that tyme to hym that shall hear hym; and or he begynne
to shew what lyeth in hys conscience, fyrste at hys beginnyng he
shall say, _Benedicite_: and afturwards hys confessor hath answered
_Dominus_. Sume than, whych be lettered, seyn here _Confiteor_ til
they come to _Mea culpa_: sume seyn no ferthere, but to _Quia peccavi
nimis_; some seyn no _Confiteor_ in latin till at the last end. Of
these maner begynnings it is lytyl charge, for the substance of
Confession is in opyn declaration and schewyng of ye synnes, in whyche
a mannus conscience demyth hym gulty agenst God. In thys declaration
be manye formes of shewyng, for some scheme and divyde here confession
in thought, speche and dede, and in thys forme sume can specyfye here
synnes, and namely in cotydian confession, as when a man is confessed
ofte; oythes as every day or every othur day or onus in sevene nyght.
Also sume schewe and here confession by declaration of ye fyve wyttes,
and all may be well as in such cotydyan confession. Also sume, and
the most parte lettyred and unletteryd, schewe openly her synnes be
confession of ye sevene dedly synnes, and thane they schewe what they
have offendyd God agenste Hys precepts, and then in mysdyspendyng
of here fyve wyttes, and thanne in not fulfyllyng ye seven dedus of
mercy. And so, whanne they have specyfyed what comyth to here mynde,
then yn ye ende, they yelde them cowpable generally to God and putte
hem in Hys mercy, askyng lowly penaunce for her synnnes and absolution
of here confessor in the name of holy church.”
The instructions, given by the Canons of the English Church, as to the
method to be followed by priests in hearing confessions, are simple and
to the point. They are to remember that they are doctors for the cure
of spiritual evils, and to be ever ready “to pour oil and wine” into
the wounds of their penitents. They are to bear in mind the proverb,
that “what may cure the eye need not cure the heel,” and are to apply
the proper remedy fitting to each disease. They are to be patient, and
“to hear what any one may have to say, bearing with them in the spirit
of mildness, and not exasperating them by word or look.” They are
“not to let their eyes wander hither and thither, but keep them cast
downwards, not looking into the face of the penitent,” unless it be to
gauge the sincerity of his sorrow, which is often reflected most of all
in the countenance. Women are to be confessed in the open church, and
outside the (lenten) veil, not so as to be heard by others but to be
seen by them.
The place where confessions might be heard was settled in the
Constitutions of Archbishop Walter Reynold, in 1322.
“Let the priest,” it is said, “choose for himself a common place for
hearing confessions, where he may be seen generally by all in the
church; and do not let him hear any one, and especially any woman,
in a private place, except in great necessity and because of some
infirmity of the penitent.”
Myrc, in his _Instructions_, says that in Confession the priest is to
“Teche hym to knele downe on hys kne,
Pore other ryche, whether he be,
Then over thyn yen pulle thyn hod,
And here hys schryfte wyth mylde mod.”
The place usually chosen by the priest to hear the confessions of his
people was apparently at the opening of the chancel, or at a bench end
near that part of the nave. In some of the churchwardens’ accounts
there is mention of a special seat or bench, called the “shryving
stool,” “the shriving pew,” “the shriving place;” whilst at St. Mary
the Great, Cambridge, there appears to have been a special erection for
Lent time, as there is an entry of expense for “six irons pertaining
to the shryving stole for lenton,” which suggests that these iron
rods were to support some sort of a screen round about the place of
confession. Perhaps, however, it may have been for an extra confessor,
since, as already related, in one place it is said that the parish paid
for three extra priests “to shreve” in Holy Week.
THE HOLY EUCHARIST.--All adults of every parish were bound to receive
the Holy Communion at least once a year under pain of being considered
outside the benefits and privileges of Holy Church and of being refused
Christian burial, if they were to die without having made their peace.
Besides the Easter precept, all were strongly urged to approach the
Holy Eucharist more frequently, and especially at Christmas and Easter,
and, as has been already pointed out, there is some evidence to show
that, in point of fact, lay people did communicate more frequently, and
especially on the Sundays of Lent.
At Easter and other times of general Communion the laity, after their
reception of the Sacrament, were given a drink of wine and water from a
chalice. The clergy were, however, directed to explain carefully to the
people that this was not part of the Sacrament. They were to impress
upon them the fact that they really received the Body and Blood of our
Lord under the one form of bread, and that this cup of wine and water
was given merely to enable them to swallow the host more securely and
easily after their fast.
EXTREME UNCTION.--
“This Sacrament,” says the Synod of Exeter, “is to be considered as
health giving to both body and soul ... wherefore it is not the least
of the Sacraments, and parish priests, when required, should show
themselves ever ready to visit the sick, and to administer it to such
as ask, without asking or expecting any payment or reward.
“We further order that, avoiding all negligence, parish priests shall
be watchful and careful in the care committed to them, and that
without reasonable cause they never sleep out of their parishes.
And further that in case they do ever so, they procure some fitting
substitute, who knows how to do everything which the cure of souls
requires.”
If by the fault, negligence, or absence of his priest any one, old
or young, shall die without Baptism, Confession, Holy Communion, or
Extreme Unction, the priest convicted of this is to be forthwith
suspended from the exercise of his ecclesiastical functions, and this
suspension is not to be relaxed until he has done fitting penance “for
so grave a crime.”
[Illustration: SACRAMENT OF EXTREME UNCTION]
VISITATION OF THE SICK.--The subject of _Extreme Unction_, “the
Sacrament of the sick,” to be given in danger of death through
sickness, raises the question of the visitation of the sick in a
mediæval parish. The order that all parish priests should visit the
sick of their district every Sunday has already been noticed. It was,
moreover, a positive law of the Church, that every priest should go at
once on being called to a sick person, no matter what time of the day
or night the summons might come. Priests were ordered also to impress
upon all doctors the need of urging sick people and their friends to
send immediately for the priest in all cases of serious illnesses.
Priests, however, were not to wait to be called, but directly they
heard that any of their people were unwell they were warned to go at
once to them.
A chance story, used to enliven a fifteenth-century sermon, illustrates
the readiness of priests to go to the sick whenever they were summoned.
“I read,” says the preacher, “in Devonshire, besides Axbridge dwelt
a holy vicar, and had in his parish a sick woman that lay all at the
death, half a myle from him in a town. The which woman at midnight
sent after this vicar to come and give her her rites. Then this vicar
with all haste that he might he rose and rode to the church and took
God’s body in a box of ivory,” etc.
Archbishop Peckham legislated for the mode of carrying the Blessed
Sacrament to the sick, or rather he codified and made obligatory the
usual practice. The parish priest was to be vested in surplice and
stole, and accompanied by another priest, or at least by a clerk. He
was to carry the Blessed Sacrament in both hands before his breast,
covered by a veil, and was to be preceded by a server carrying a light
in a lantern, and ringing a hand bell, to give notice to the people
that “the King of Glory under the veil of bread” was being borne
through their midst, in order that they might kneel or otherwise adore
Him.
If the case was so urgent, that there was no time for the priest to
secure a clerk to carry the light and bell, Lyndwood notes that the
practice was for the priest to hang the lamp and bell upon one of his
arms. This he would also do in large parishes, where sick people had to
be visited at a distance and on horseback. In this case the lamp and
bell would be hung round the horse’s neck.
On the return to the church, should the Blessed Sacrament have been
consumed, the light was to be extinguished and the bell silenced, so
that the people might understand, and not, in this case, kneel as the
priest passed along. Lyndwood adds that the people should be told to
follow the Sacrament with “bowed head, devotion of heart, and uplifted
hands.” They were to be taught also to use a set form of prayer as the
priest passed along, such as the following: “Hail! Light of the world,
Word of the Father, true Victim, Living Flesh, true God and true Man.
Hail flesh of Christ, which has suffered for me! Oh, flesh of Christ,
let Thy blood wash my soul!” The great canonist says that he himself
on these occasions was accustomed to make use of the well-known “_Ave
verum Corpus, natum ex Maria Virgine_,” etc.
[Illustration: HEARSE AND PALL, FIFTEENTH CENTURY. CANTORS AT LECTERN]
The bell and light, or lights, for the visitation of the sick, were to
be found by the parish, and the churchwardens’ accounts consistently
record expenses to procure and maintain these lights. In some places,
apparently, the people found two such lanterns instead of the one which
the law obliged them to furnish. In the Archdeacon’s visitations,
also, there were set inquiries to see that the parish did its duty
in this matter. In one such examination there are references to the
necessary “cyphus pro infirmis,” which is stated to be good, bad, or
wanting altogether. What this may have been is not quite clear; but
probably it was the dish in which the priest purified his fingers,
after having communicated the sick person. Myrc gives a rhyming summary
of what a priest should know about visiting the sick. He is to go fast
when called; he is to take a clean surplice and a stole, “and pul thy
hod over thy syght;” in case of death being imminent, he is not to make
the sick man confess all his sins, but merely charge him to ask God’s
mercy with humble heart. If the sick man cannot speak, but shows by
signs that he wishes for the Sacraments--“Nertheless thou schalt hym
Soyle, and give hym hosul and holy oyle.”
The bishops watched carefully to see that no laxity should creep into
the mode of giving the Viaticum to the sick. Bishop Grandisson, in
1335, issued a special mandate to the priests of his diocese on the
matter, as he had heard that some carelessness had been noticed. He
reminds them that the Provincial Constitutions were clear in their
prescriptions that all were to wear a surplice and stole, unless the
weather were bad, and then these might be carried and put on before the
room of the sick man was entered. They must always have the light borne
before them, however, and the bell was to be rung to call the attention
of the people generally to the passing of the Sacrament, and thus
enable them to make their adoration.
According to most books of instruction on the duties of priests, before
the sick man was anointed or received the holy Viaticum, the parson
was to put to him what were known as “the seven interrogations.” He
was to be asked: (1) if he believed the articles of the faith and the
Holy Scriptures; (2) whether he recognized that he had offended God
Almighty; (3) whether he was sorry for his sins; (4) whether he desired
to amend, and if God gave him more time, by His grace he would do so;
(5) whether he forgave all his enemies; (6) whether he would make all
satisfaction; (7) “Belevest thowe fully that Criste dyed for the, and
that thow may never be saved but by the merite of Cristes passione, and
thonne thonkest therof God with thyne harte as moche as thowe mayest?
He answerethe, Yee.”
“Thanne let the curat desire the sick persone to saye _In manus tuas
&cetera_ with a good stedfast mynde and yf that he canne. And yef he
cannot, let the curate saye it for hym. And who so ever may verely of
very good conscience and trowthe without any faynyng, answere ‘yee,’
to all the articles and poyntes afore rehersed, he shalle live ever
in hevyne with Alle myghtie God and with his holy cumpany, wherunto
Ihesus brynge bothe youe and me. Amen.”
MARRIAGE.--So far in this chapter the Sacraments which every
parishioner had to receive at one time or other have been briefly
treated. It remains to speak of the Sacrament of Matrimony, which,
though not absolutely general, yet commonly affected most people
in every parish. “Marriage,” says Bishop Quevil, in the Synod of
Exeter--“marriage should be celebrated with great discretion and
reverence, in proper places and at proper times, with all modesty and
mature consideration; it should be celebrated not in taverns nor during
feastings and drinkings, nor in secret and suspect places.” That a
matter of this importance should be rightly done, the Synod lays down
the law of the Catholic Church on the point; no espousal or marriage
was to be held valid unless the contract was made in the presence of
the parish priest and three witnesses. For, although the contract of
the parties was the essential factor in marriage, still, “without the
authority of the Church, by the judgment of which the contract had to
be approved, marriages are not to be contracted.”
The first matter to be attended to in arranging for a marriage in
any parochial church was, as now, the publication of the banns in
the church on three successive Sundays or feast days. This was to
secure the proof of the freedom of the parties to marry. In a book of
instructions for parish priests, written about 1426, some interesting
information is given as to marriage.
[Illustration: SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY]
“The seventh Sacrament is wedlock,” it says, “before the which
Sacrament the banes in holy church shal be thryes asked on thre
solempne dayes--a werk day or two between, at the lest: eche day on
this maner: _N._ of V. has spoken with _N._ of P. to have hir to his
wife, and to ryght lyve in forme of holy chyrche. If any mon knowe any
lettyng qwy they may not come togedyr say now or never on payne of
cursyng.”
On the day appointed for the marriage, at the door of the church, the
priest shall interrogate the parties as follows:--
“_N._ Hast thu wille to have this wommon to thi wedded wif. _R._ Ye
syr. My thu wel fynde at thi best to love hur and hold ye to hur and
to no other to thi lives end. _R._ Ye syr. Then take her by yor hande
and say after me: I _N._ take the _N._ in forme of holy chyrche to
my wedded wyfe, forsakyng alle other, holdyng me hollych to the, in
sekenes and in hele, in ryches and in poverte, in well and in wo, tyl
deth us departe, and there to I plyght ye my trowthe.”
Then the woman repeated the form as above.
It was this “Marriage at the church door” which had to be established,
according to Bracton, in any question as to the legality or
non-legality of the contract. After this “taking to wife at the church
door,” the parties entered the church and completed the rite in the
church itself. As in the case of baptisms, churchings, and funerals,
the fee for marriages was fixed at 1_d._, but apparently all who could
afford it, gave more.
“Three ornaments,” says the author of _Dives and Pauper_--“three
ornaments (at marriage) belonged principally to the wyfe: a rynge on
her finger, a broche on hyr breste, and a garlande on hir head. The
rynge betokeneth true love; the broche betokeneth clenness of herte
and chastity that she ought to have; and the garland betokeneth the
gladness and the dignity of the sacrament of wedlock.”
Some of the ornaments for the bride at marriage the parish provided.
The nuptial veil was one of the things which the churchwardens were
supposed to find, and frequent inquiries were made concerning it in
the parochial visitations. In one parish the wardens possessed “one
standing mazer to serve for brides at their wedding;” and in another, a
set of jewels was left in trust for the use of brides on their wedding
day. If lent outside the parish, they were to be paid for, and the
receipt was to go to the common purposes of the church to which they
belonged.
CHAPTER X
THE PARISH PULPIT
The influence on parochial life of the Sunday sermon and what went
with it can hardly be exaggerated. It was not only that it was at this
time that the priest instructed his people in their faith and in the
practice of their religion; but the pulpit was the means, and in those
days the sole means, by which the official or quasi-official business
of the place was announced to the inhabitants of a district. The great
variety of matters that had necessarily to be brought to the notice of
the parishioners would have all tended to make the pulpit utterances
on the Sunday, in a pre-Reformation parish, both interesting and
instructive. In this chapter it is proposed to illustrate some of the
many features presented at the time of the Sunday sermon; and first as
to the regular religious teaching of faith and morals.
The first duty of the Church, after seeing to the administration of
the Sacraments and the offering of the Sacrifice of the Altar, was
obviously to teach and direct its children in all matters of belief and
practice. This was done from the pulpit, which was in all probability
an unpretentious wooden erection, perhaps in the screen, or at the
chancel arch. In one case there is given the cost of the erection of a
pulpit of wood; another churchwardens’ account speaks of “clasps for”
the pulpit (?), possibly hinges for the door; a third tells of “a green
silk veil for the pulpit”; and a fourth of “cloth and a pillow” for it.
The chief interest, however, is not in the thing itself, but in its use.
[Illustration: PULPIT, 1475, ST. PAUL’S, TRURO]
It is impossible to think that Chaucer’s typical priest was a mere
creation of his imagination. The picture must have had its counterpart
in numberless parishes in England in the fourteenth century. This is
how the poet’s priest is described:--
“A good man was ther of religioun,
And was a poure parsoun of a town;
But riche he was of holy thought and werk.
He was also a lerned man, a clerk,
That Christe’s Gospel trewely wolde preche,
His parischens devoutly wolde he teche.
* * * * *
But Christe’s lore and His Apostles twelve
He taughte, but first he folwede it himselve.”
It will be remembered, too, that the story Chaucer makes his priest
contribute to the _Canterbury Tales_ is nothing else than an excellent
and complete tract, almost certainly a translation of a Latin
theological treatise, upon the Sacrament of Penance.
As a sample, however, of what is popularly believed on this subject
at the present day, it is well to take the opinion of by no means
an extreme party writer, Bishop Hobhouse. “Preaching,” he says,
“was not a regular part of the Sunday observances as now. It was
rare, but we must not conclude from the silence of our MSS. (_i.e._
churchwardens’ accounts) that it was never practised.” In another
place he states, upon what he thinks sufficient evidence, “that there
was a total absence of any system of clerical training, and that the
cultivation of the conscience as the directing power of man’s soul,
and the implanting of holy affections in the heart seem to have been
no part of the Church’s system of guidance.” That this is certainly
not a correct view as to the way in which the pastors of the parochial
churches in pre-Reformation days discharged--or rather neglected--their
duties, in view of the facts, appears to be certain. The grounds for
this opinion are the following: for practical purposes we may divide
the religious teaching, given by the clergy, into the two classes of
_sermons_ and _instructions_. The distinction is obvious. By the first
are meant those set discourses to prove some definite theme, or expound
some definite passage of Holy Scripture, or deduce the lessons to be
learnt from the life of some saint. In other words, putting aside
the controversial aspect, which, of course, was rare in those days,
a sermon in mediæval times was much what a sermon is to-day. There
was this difference, however, that in pre-Reformation days the sermon
was not probably so frequent as in these modern times. Now, whatever
instruction is given to the people at large is conveyed to them almost
entirely in the form of set sermons, which, however admirable in
themselves, seldom convey to their hearers consecutive and systematic,
dogmatic and moral teaching. Mediæval methods of imparting religious
knowledge were different. For the most part the priest fulfilled
the duty of instructing his flock by plain, unadorned, and familiar
instructions upon matters of faith and practice. These must have much
more resembled our present catechetical instructions than our modern
pulpit discourses. To the subject of set sermons I shall have occasion
to return presently, but as vastly more important, at any rate in the
opinion of our Catholic forefathers, let us first consider the question
of familiar instructions. For the sake of clearness we will confine our
attention to the two centuries (the fourteenth and fifteenth) previous
to the great religious revolution under Henry VIII.
Before the close of the thirteenth century, namely, in A.D. 1281,
Archbishop Peckham issued the celebrated Constitutions of the Synod of
Oxford which are called by his name. There we find the instruction of
the people legislated for minutely.
“We order,” runs the Constitution, “that every priest having the
charge of a flock do, four times in each year (that is, once each
quarter), on one or more solemn feast days, either himself or by
some one else, instruct the people in the vulgar language, simply
and without any fantastical admixture of subtle distinctions, in the
articles of the Creed, the Ten Commandments, the Evangelical Precepts,
the seven works of mercy, the seven deadly sins with their offshoots,
the seven principal virtues, and the Seven Sacraments.”
The Synod then proceeded to set out in considerable detail each of the
points upon which the people must be instructed. Now, it is obvious
that if four times a year this law was complied with in the spirit in
which it was given, the people were very thoroughly instructed indeed
in their faith. But was this law faithfully carried out by the clergy,
and rigorously enforced by the bishops in the succeeding centuries?
That is the real question. I think that there is ample evidence that it
was. In the first place, the Constitutions of Peckham are referred to
constantly in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries as the foundation
of the existing practices in the English Church. Thus, to take a few
specific instances in the middle of the fourteenth century, the decree
of a diocesan Synod orders--
“That all rectors, vicars, or chaplains holding ecclesiastical offices
shall expound clearly and plainly to their people, on all Sundays and
feast days, the Word of God and the Catholic faith of the Apostles;
and that they shall diligently instruct their subjects in the articles
of faith, and teach them in their native language the Apostles’
Creed, and urge them to expound it and teach the same faith to their
children.”
[Illustration: STONE PULPIT BRACKET, WALPOLE ST. ANDREW, NORFOLK]
Again, in A.D. 1357, Archbishop Thoresby, of York, anxious for the
better instruction of his people, commissioned a monk of St. Mary’s,
York, named Gatryke, to draw out in English an exposition of the
Creed, the Commandments, the seven deadly sins, etc. This tract the
archbishop, as he says in his preface, through the counsel of his
clergy, sent to all his priests--
“So that each and every one, who under him had the charge of souls,
do openly in English, upon Sundays teach and preach them, that they
have cure of the law and the way to know God Almighty. And he commands
and bids, in all that he may, that all who have keeping or cure under
him, enjoin their parishioners and their subjects, that they hear and
learn all these things, and oft, either rehearse them till they know
them, and so teach them to their children, if they any have, when
they are old enough to learn them; and that parsons and vicars and
all parish priests inquire diligently of their subjects at Lent-time,
when they come to shrift, whether they know these things, and if it be
found that they know them not, that they enjoin them upon his behalf,
and on pain of penance, to know them. And so there be none to excuse
themselves through ignorance of them, our father, the Archbishop, of
his goodness has ordained and bidden that they be showed openly in
English amongst the flock.”
To take another example: the Acts of the Synod, held by Simon Langham
at Ely in A.D. 1364, order that every parish priest frequently preach
and expound the Ten Commandments, etc., in English (_in idiomate
communi_), and all priests are urged to devote themselves to the study
of the Sacred Scriptures, so as to be ready “to give an account of the
hope and faith” that are in them. Further, they are to see that the
children are taught their prayers; and even adults, when coming to
confession, are to be examined as to their religious knowledge.
Even when the rise of the Lollard heretics rendered it important that
some check should be given to general and unauthorized preaching, this
did not interfere with the ordinary work of instruction. The orders
of Archbishop Arundel in A.D. 1408, forbidding all preaching without an
episcopal licence, set forth in distinct terms, that this prohibition
did not apply “to the parish priests,” etc., who by the Constitutions
of Archbishop Peckham were bound to instruct their people, in simple
language, on all matters concerning their faith and observance. And
further, in order to check the practice of treating people to such
formal and set discourses, these simple and practical instructions were
ordered to be adopted without delay in all parish churches.
[Illustration: ARCHIDIACONAL VISITATION]
[Illustration: SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY]
To this testimony of the English Church as to the value attached to
popular instruction may be added the authority of the Provincial
Council of York, held in A.D. 1466 by Archbishop Nevill. By its
decrees not only is the order as to systematic quarterly and simple
instructions reiterated, but the points of the teaching are again set
out by the Synod in great detail.
There is, moreover, ample evidence to convince any one who may desire
to study the subject, that this duty of giving plain instructions to
the people was not neglected up to the era of the Reformation itself.
During the fifteenth century, manuals to assist the clergy in the
performance of this obligation were multiplied in considerable numbers;
which would not have been the case had the practice of frequently
giving these familiar expositions fallen into abeyance. To some of
these manuals it will be necessary to refer presently, but here should
be noted specially the fact that one of the earliest books ever issued
from an English press by Caxton, probably at the same time (A.D. 1483)
as the _Liber Festivalis_ (or book of sermons for Sundays and feast
days), was a set of four lengthy discourses, published, as they
expressly declare, to enable priests to fulfil the obligation imposed
on them by the Constitutions of Peckham. As these were intended to
take at least four Sundays, and as the whole set of instructions had
to be given four times each year, it follows that at least sixteen
Sundays, or a quarter of the year, were devoted to this simple and
straightforward teaching of what every Christian was bound to believe
and to do.
That the parish priests really did their duty in instructing their
people there is evidence of another, and that an official character.
The Episcopal, or Chapter Registers fortunately in some few cases
contain documents recording the results of the regular Visitations
of parishes. It is almost by chance, of course, that papers of this
kind have been preserved. Most of them would have been destroyed as
possessing little importance in the opinion of those who ransacked the
archives at the time of the change of religion. The testimony of these
Visitation papers as to the performance of this duty of instruction on
the part of the clergy is most valuable. Hardly less important is the
proof they afford of the intelligent interest taken by the lay-folk
of the parish in the work, and of their capability of rationally and
religiously appreciating these instructions given them by their clergy.
The process of these Visitations must be understood to fully appreciate
the significance of their testimony. First of all, certain of the
parishioners were chosen and were examined upon oath as to the state
of the parish, and as to the way in which the pastor performed his
duties. As samples of these sworn depositions, what are to be found in
a “Visitation of Capitular manors and estates of the Exeter diocese”
may be taken; extracts from these have been printed not long ago by
Prebendary Hingeston Randolph, in the Register of Bishop Stapeldon.
The record of these Visitations comprises the first fifteen years of
the fourteenth century; at one place, Colaton, we find the _jurati_
depose that their parson preaches in his own way, and on the Sundays
expounds the Gospels, as well as he can (_quatenus novit_)! He does not
give them much instruction (_non multum eos informat_), they think, in
“the articles of faith, the Ten Commandments, and the deadly sins.”
At another place, the priest, one Robert Blond, “preaches, but,” as
appears to the witnesses, “not sufficiently clearly;” but they add, as
if conscious of some hypercriticism, that they had long been accustomed
to pastors who instructed them most carefully in all that pertained
to the salvation of their souls. But these are perhaps the least
satisfactory cases. In most instances the priest is said to instruct
his people “well” (_bene_), and “excellently” (_optime_), and the truth
of the testimony appears more clearly in places where, in other things,
the parish-folk do not consider that their priest was quite perfection;
as, for instance, at Culmstock, where the vicar, Walter, is said to
be too long over the Matins and Mass on feasts; or still more at St.
Mary Church, where the people think that in looking after his worldly
interests, their priest was somewhat too hard on them in matters of
tithe.
The Register from which these details are taken is a mere accidental
survival, but the point which it is of importance to remember is this:
that during Catholic times, in the course of every few years the clergy
were thus personally reported upon, so to say, to the chief pastor
or his delegates, and the oaths of the witnesses is a proof of how
gravely this duty was regarded. And here may be noted, in passing, a
fact not realized nor even understood, namely, that one of the great
differences between ecclesiastical life in the Middle Ages and modern
times lies in the fact that then people had no chance “of going to
sleep.” There was a regular system of periodical Visitations, and
everything was brought to the test of inquiry of a most elaborate and
searching kind, in which every corner, so to speak, was swept out.
In this special instance, before passing on, attention may be
called to the manifest intelligence, in spiritual things, shown by
these jurors--peasants and farmers--in out-of-the-way parishes of
clod-hopping Devon, in the early years of the fourteenth century.
To assist priests in the preparation of these familiar discourses,
manuals of all kinds were drawn up in the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries. It is impossible here to do more than give the names of
a few of the best known. They are (1) The _Pars Oculi Sacerdotis_,
by William Pagula, or Parker. (2) The _Papilla Oculi_, by John de
Burgo, Rector of Collingham in A.D. 1385. (3) The _Regimen Animarum_,
compiled about 1343. (4) The _Speculum Christiani_, by John Walton. (5)
The _Flos Florum_, etc. All these, and many others like them, may be
called popular books of instruction. Besides these, of course, there
are a multitude of theological text-books, all calculated to aid the
clergy in what the great Grosseteste calls “as much a part of the _cura
pastoralis_ as the administration of the Sacraments.”
In the same way that the work of instruction proper took a fixed
form, so that of preaching was fashioned on a well-understood and
well-recognized model. A short exordium, following upon the chosen text
of Scripture, led almost invariably to a prayer for Divine guidance and
assistance, which concluded with the _Pater_ and _Ave_, and only then
did the preacher address himself to the development of his subject. For
the most part, until comparatively recent times, which have introduced
somewhat strange themes into the sacred pulpit, the sermon was based
almost entirely upon the Bible, and generally upon the Gospel or other
Scripture proper for the day. This practice, whilst it imbued the minds
of those who listened with a thorough knowledge of the sacred writings,
gives the sermons, as we read them now, so great a similarity that we
are apt to regard them as generally dull and uninteresting. With rare
exceptions it is clear that, in England at least, brilliant, startling,
and sensational sermonizing was not regarded with favour, but, on the
contrary, was looked on with suspicion, as savouring of the “treatise”
or method of the schools, and founded on the practice of heretics.
Surveying the ground of parochial preaching, one or two facts seem
to stand out from the background of much that is still vague and
uncertain. First, it is certain that popular and vernacular teaching
was by no means neglected by the parish priests in pre-Reformation
pulpits. Next to this is the prominence given to homely and familiar
instruction, as distinct from formal sermons, and the importance which
in those days was attached to the constant reiteration of the same old,
yet ever new, lessons of faith and practice. On the part of the people
hearing of sermons was taught as a duty, and they had to examine their
consciences as to whether they had tried to shirk the obligation. As
Myrc puts it--
“Has thou wythowte devocyone
I-herde any predicacyon?
Hast thou gon or setten else where
When thou myghtest have ben there?”
Besides the sermon, which followed upon the reading or singing of the
Gospel in the Mass, there were several other Sunday practices connected
with the pulpit. First may be mentioned the reading of the _Bede-roll_.
This was of two kinds, general and particular, and Dr. Rock has
printed an interesting specimen of the first and several examples of
the second. From the first a few quotations will make the nature and
intention of the Church in the “Bidding of Bedes” quite clear. It
begins--
“Masters and frendes, as for holy dayes and fasting days ye shall have
none thys weke” (of course, when there were any they were named), “but
ye maye doe all manner of good workes, that shall bee to the honoure
of God and the profyt of your own soules. And therefore, after a
laudable consuetude and lawfull custome of our mother holy Churche, ye
shall knele down movyng your heartes unto Almightye God, and makyng
your speciall prayers for the three estates, concerning all christian
people, that is to say for the spiritualtye and temporaltie and the
soules being in the paynes of purgatory.”
Then after mentioning the Pope, the metropolitan, the bishop, and
parish priests “having cure of mannes soule,” and in the “temporalty”
the king, queen, and royal family, with the lords, etc., the priest
from the pulpit recommended to the people’s prayers all those “that
have honoured the church wyth light, lamp, vestment, or bell, or any
ornaments, by the whyche the service of Almighty God is the better
maintained and kept.”
[Illustration: SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION]
[Illustration: YOUTHS RECEIVING HOLY COMMUNION]
After this, prayers were asked for all workers and tillers of the
earth; for the fruits and for proper weather for them; for those in
“debt or deadly sin,” that God may free them; for the sick and for all
pilgrims; and “for women that be in our ladyes bondes, that Almighty
God may send them grace, the child to receive the sacrament of baptism,
and the mother purification. Also ye shall praye for the good man or
woman, that this daye geveth bread to make the holy lofe, and for all
those that fyrste began it, and them that longest continue.”
The priest then turned towards the altar for the _Pater_ and _Ave_ with
the psalm _Deus misereatur_, etc., and these being finished, he turned
once more towards the people and said--
“Thirdly, ye shall pray for your frends’ soules, as your father’s
soule, your mother’s soule, your brethren’s soule, your sister’s soul,
your godfather’s soule, your godmother’s soul, and for all those souls
whose bones rest in this church and churchyard, ... and above all, for
those soules whose names be accustomed to be rehearsed in the bederoll
as I shall rehearse them unto you by the grace of God.”
Then followed the reading of the names from the bede-roll, one specimen
of which has been preserved by the antiquary Hearne, and which, he
says, is drawn up on a large octavo leaf of vellum, and contains merely
a series of names, at the end of which is the formula: “God have mercy
on these souls and of all Crystyn soules.”
This catalogue of names, sometimes called the “Dominical Roll,” was the
shortened form for ordinary occasions, but on certain days, such as
“All Saints’ day,” there was in the case of benefactors a longer form,
which set forth the individual reasons why the people should specially
remember these dead in their prayers. For entering the names on this
roll, a fee was paid to the parson by the parish; thus at Laverton,
in 1521, there is the entry in the churchwardens’ accounts: “Fee to
William Wright, the parish priest, for entering the names of Thomas
Greste, Agnes his wife, and John and William their children, on the
bede-roll.”
As examples of the longer form of proclamation may be given an entry
already cited on the bede-roll of St. Michael’s, Cornhill, which runs
thus--
“You must pray--for Richard Atfield, sometime parish parson of this
church, for he with the consent of the Bishop ordained and established
Matins, High Mass, and Even-song, to be sung daily in the year 1375.”
Or the following from the Laverton account--
“The suit of red purple velvet vestments were given by Sir John
Wright, parson, son of William Wright and Elizabeth, for the which you
shall specially pray for the souls” of the above, etc., “and for all
benefactors as well as them that be off lyve as be departed to the
mercy of God, for whose lives and soules is given heyr to the honour
of God, His most blessed mother our Lady Saynt Mare and all His saints
being in Heaven and the blessed matron Saynte Helene--and they to be
usyd at such principal feasts and times as it shall please ye curates,
as long as they shall last--for all these souls and all Christian
souls ye shall say one _Pater noster_.”
In many instances it was apparently the curate’s duty to read
the parish bede-roll, and the stipend he received for performing
this service was part of his benefice. In other cases, a fee was
paid to the parson on the day when the roll was read. Thus at St.
Mary-at-Hill, in 1490, there is a payment by the wardens, entered as
follows: “_Item._ To Mr. John Redy for rehersyng of the bederoll,
8_d._” One purpose served by thus keeping the memory of the good
deeds of parishioners who had passed away, before the memory of their
successors, was that it stimulated the latter to emulate the example of
these benefactors. Bishop Hobhouse is obviously right when he says that
popular bounty was undoubtedly elicited by hearing the names of the
doers of past generous deeds read out in church on great days. All, in
pre-Reformation days, appear to have been anxious, according to their
means, to find a place on this roll of honour.
Very similar to this bede-roll was what was known as the “Quethe-word,”
for which fees are recorded so often as having been paid. Apparently
this was the announcement of the death of a parishioner made for
the first time after his decease. The fee for the speaking of this
“Quethe-word” was usually paid by the wardens of the parish, but
possibly only when bequests had been made by the deceased to the
“common stock” of the parish.
Besides this kind of Sunday notice, the pulpit was the means by
which all manner of ecclesiastical or quasi-ecclesiastical business
was notified. In the first place, of course, the banns of intended
marriages were published on three successive Sundays and feast days.
Then such warnings to parents were given as reminding them of the
necessity of seeing that their children receive Confirmation, with the
information that the bishop would either be in the church or in the
neighbourhood at such a time. The Council of Oxford ordered that parish
priests were frequently to warn parents from the pulpit about this duty
of not delaying to bring up their children to the bishop.
Then there were constant appeals being made for assistance of some kind
or other, generally of a public or semi-public character, supported by
an indulgence, or grant of spiritual favours from the bishop. To take
an example: some time about 1270, Walter Langton, Bishop of Coventry
and Lichfield, wrote a letter on behalf of a work, for which one John
Perty was collecting. John Perty was the procurator and collector
of the bridge at or near Colwich, and he was trying to get money to
repair, or rather to rebuild, the bridge and its chapel, and at the
same time to gather sufficient endowment to maintain a priest. The
bishop asks all his priests to explain the matter from their pulpits,
to show that it was a work of charity, and to say that to all who
contribute in any way he grants forty days of indulgence under the
usual conditions.
The same bishop at another time orders all rectors and parish priests
to publish “at the time of their sermons and exhortations” his
indulgence to all who would visit the cathedral church of Lichfield
and contribute to the building of the spires of his cathedral. Other
episcopal letters, which were all to be read in the parish churches,
were of a more private character. One man, for instance, had suffered
great losses through a fire, which had destroyed his house; another had
had his barns burned; a third had been left almost destitute by having
his crops destroyed by floods; a fourth had been plundered by robbers;
a fifth had suffered the loss of an arm, etc. In all such cases, if
those who asked could prove that their needs were genuine, the bishop
had not apparently much hesitation in granting letters of indulgence to
those who would help in these Christian charities; and all such letters
became matter for the Sunday parish pulpit.
Then, it was in the church that all laws, civil as well as
ecclesiastical, were published. Here, too, notice of all manner of
civil proceedings was made. A, for instance, had died and been laid
to rest in the churchyard; it is from the pulpit of his parish church
that the fact is announced that he has left B and E the executors of
his will, and people are notified to send in their claims, or pay what
is owing to the estate to these two. Or it may be that A has died
intestate, or that those he has appointed to carry out his wishes will
not do so, in which cases people are to be warned that the bishop’s
official will administer the estate, and all claims are to be sent in
to him.
Then all questions of social order and well-being, as well as
infraction of law in the district, came before the people in some form
or other in the church and from the pulpit.
“When Agnes Paston,” for example, “built a wall (across a property to
which the people claimed access), it was thrown down before it was
half completed, and threats of heavy amercements (says Dr. Gairdner)
were addressed to her in church, and the men of Paston spoke of
showing their displeasure when they went in public procession on St.
Mark’s day.”
So, also, the parish priest of Standon, at the beginning of the
fifteenth century, was ordered to publish an excommunication under the
following circumstances: Margaret Basun, a parishioner, was charged
by some people with having stolen a silver ring belonging to Alice
Braymer, and with having sold it to Anne Boghley. Margaret Basun denied
the truth, and was called to make canonical purgation before the
bishop. She did so, and the bishop, having heard the case, declared her
innocent of the charge, and ordered her innocence to be proclaimed, and
an excommunication to be pronounced against those who had defamed her.
To take another sample case: a man spread false stories about the
apprentices of his father, saying that they had been the thieves of
some goods, etc., which had been stolen. An examination by the bishop
revealed the fact that it was the accuser who was in reality the
robber, and it was proved that he had made a false key, had opened his
father’s chest, and taken from it money and jewels. The bishop directed
that this should be told the people on the following Sunday.
Once more: a person has been much defamed in his parish by people
saying he had buried a child in his back garden. He denied this
charge utterly, and the denial was published to the people from the
pulpit, whilst his accusers were warned to come before the bishop and
oppose his purgation. Or, lastly: John Spencer, the official of the
Archdeacon of Lincoln, issued a letter to be read in the parish church,
in which he declares that he has had before him Alice B. and Matilda
S. The former had defamed the latter by calling her a _meretrix_. On
examination this was found to be untrue, and Matilda S. was declared
innocent. Alice B. is to be compelled to cease these injuries, and to
pay all the expenses.
Another set of proclamations which had to be made on the Sunday from
the parish pulpit were the excommunications pronounced by the bishop
or by some other authority. In the Register of Bishop Bronescombe
is a document, dated November 24, 1277, pronouncing two people of
good family excommunicated for living together without being rightly
married. The fact is notorious, and “the keys of the Church are vilely
despised,” and this contempt may be hurtful to ecclesiastical authority
if allowed to continue. For this reason the bishop’s sentence of
excommunication is ordered to be published in every church and chapel.
A second instance may be taken from Bishop Grandisson’s Register for
1335. It appears that one John Hayward, the bailiff of Plympton Priory,
for some reason not apparent, took sanctuary in the church of Sutton.
Despising the sanctity of the place, some people unknown broke down the
doors of the church, and, dragging the unfortunate man from his place
of safety, wounded him, and even broke both his thighs. The bishop
consequently orders the sentence of greater excommunication to be
pronounced upon the unknown criminals, “with bell and candle,” in all
churches.
Other instances of excommunications published from the church
pulpit are: (1) For detaining “charters, rolls, indentures, bills,
evidences, and other muniments,” which had to do with the right of
a man’s succession to the estate of his father. The persons holding
the documents are unknown, and so all who have them, or are assisting
in concealing them, are excommunicated after fifteen days. (2) For
stealing a trap to catch eels, set in a pool called in English “a
leap,” and throwing it into a pool in the town of C, belonging to the
Prior of O. (3) For laying violent hands on a priest, who was known
to be one by his dress and tonsure. (4) For breaking into the room of
Thomas, rector of a London parish. The room was, by the way, in the
Campanile, and the thieves took clothes, gold, and silver to the value
of 40_s._, etc.
As a final instance of this kind of denunciation, an incident recorded
in Bishop Grandisson’s Register for 1348 may be given. There had
been, the bishop says, much talk, and many complaints had reached his
ears about a woman named Margery Kytel, who exercised magic arts, and
was regarded as a witch. He (the bishop) had cited her to appear to
answer the charge; but she had not done so. The major excommunication
is ordered to be pronounced against her, and all people in every
church and chapel are to be warned, under the same penalty, not to
have anything to do with her, still less to consult this “phitonessa
demonica.”
A further class of parish notices were the citations of principles and
witnesses to ecclesiastical courts. For instance, on February 19, 1426,
an order was given to the chaplain who served the chapel of Baddesley
to cite those who had acted as executors of the wills of John Barkeby
and Juliana Power, for having done so without the leave of the Bishop
of Coventry. In answer to this, John West, Vicar of Pollesworth,
certifies that he has published the citation, and that Nicholas Power,
the son of the above-named Juliana, had acted as her executor and that
of John Barkeby. As a second example may be given the case of a rector
of a parish church in Staffordshire, who was ordered to cite two of
his parishioners, Thomas Grenegore and his wife, for keeping a bad
house in the parish, to appear at the prebendal church of Eccleshall on
August 10, 1426, “to receive correction for the good of their souls.”
Of much the same kind is the letter of William, Bishop of Coventry
and Lichfield, in 1441, which recites that Thomas, son of Richard
Tomlynson, of Marchington, in the county of Stafford, on September 6,
1420, broke into Sudbury church and stole three chalices, two vestments
worth £10, one breviary, a surplice, and two curtains, the property of
the churchwardens. The said Thomas, having been captured by the secular
power, had been handed over to the ecclesiastical authorities, and
this letter was to be published in the church of Sudbury, to summon
witnesses to appear at the bishop’s court.
Connected with this phase of parochial life were the public penances
which had to be performed in the parish churches. In the comparatively
rare instances of people convicted as heretics, the punishment was
so severe that, in these days, it must cause astonishment that
they were submitted to so quietly. For such a cause the penitent
had to walk barefooted and dressed only in underclothing, bearing
a bundle of faggots, in the Sunday procession for three successive
Sundays. During the course of the passage of the clergy and people
through the churchyard, the priest was to give certain disciplines
(_fustigaciones_), and the penitent was then to kneel at the entrance
of the chancel during Mass, with the faggot in front, and holding
a candle in one hand. Other public ecclesiastical punishments were
hardly less severe. I. de B., for example, in the fourteenth century,
was condemned to undergo six public whippings (_fustigaciones_)
on six Sundays before the procession in his parish church, for
having violently beaten a cleric. In the fifteenth century, for a
grave offence a person was enjoined to go round the market-place of
Marlborough on two market days _nudus usque ad camisiam et braccas_,
and to be whipped by a priest at each corner. This kind of penance,
however, was not confined to the laity. There are instances of clergy
being made to do public penances even in their own parish churches.
For instance, the rector of the church of O., being convicted before
the bishop of a crime, was sentenced to stand bareheaded at the font
for three Sundays during High Mass. He was to be vested in surplice
and stole, and to read his Psalter. He was then to go as a penitential
pilgrim to Lincoln, Canterbury, and Beverley, and at each to offer
a candle, and to bring back a testimonial letter that this had been
faithfully done.
To take one or two further examples of these public penances in church,
(1) A man convicted of the sin of incontinence, which has been a
scandal, is condemned to walk with bare feet and bareheaded before
his parish priest in the procession on two solemn feast days. (2) A
woman convicted of unchastity, publicly known, is sentenced to three
fustigacions round the parish church in the usual penitential way,
_sola camisia duntaxat induta_. She is to hold a wax candle of half a
pound in weight from the beginning of Mass till the Offertory, when it
is to be offered to the image in the chancel. This is to be done on
three Sundays, and if the condemned refuse to undergo the punishment,
she is then to be excommunicated, and is to be publicly proclaimed as
such on each feast day till she repent and undergo her penance.
CHAPTER XI
PARISH AMUSEMENTS
Notwithstanding that the parish was instituted primarily for
ecclesiastical objects, the people quickly came to understand the
utility of the organization for common and social purposes. Although
it was not till well into the sixteenth century that any successful
attempt was made to impose by law upon the parishioners, as such, any
purely secular duty, such as the care of local roads and bridges,
or the repair of ditches, dykes, and sluices, the people’s wardens
had long before this assumed the superintendence of all the common
parochial amusements, and in some instances of works, such as brewing
and baking, etc., undertaken for the common benefit or profit. These
probably mostly sprang out of their necessary management of parochial
property, which had a natural tendency to grow in extent, and in
particular of the “Church House,” which in one form or other most
parishes possessed.
The _Church House_.--Mr. J. M. Cowper, in his preface to the _Accounts
of the Churchwardens of St. Dunstan’s, Canterbury_, gives a useful
description of the purposes for which the _Church_, or, as it was
sometimes called, the _Parish_, _House_ existed. In the fifteenth
century, and indeed before that, the church was the real centre of
all parochial life, social as well as religious. “From the font to the
grave the greater number of people lived within the sound of its bells.
It provided them with all the consolations of religion, and linked
itself with such amusements as it did not directly supply.”
[Illustration: CHURCH HOUSE, LINCOLN]
Parish meetings not unfrequently settled local disputes. Thus at
Canterbury in 1485, at St. Dunstan’s, there was some dispute between
the parish and a man named Baker, and the churchwardens spent 2½_d._
on arbitration. Later on, two families fell out, and the vicar and four
parishioners met in council, heard the parties, and put an end to the
difficulty.
A parish, with all the great interests involved in its proper
management, required some place where parish meetings could be held.
They were sometimes, no doubt, held in the aisle of the parish church,
but this arrangement was for obvious reasons inconvenient, and a
Church house became a necessity. Its existence was apparently almost
universal. At Hackney, for instance, the parish built a house in
which to hold meetings. At Yatton, in Somerset, in 1445, the people
subscribed to the building of their house; at Tintinhull, in the same
county, one was completed in 1497; but in 1531, another was erected to
take the place of the older one, and Thomas, Prior of Montacute, helped
the parish with a donation of twenty shillings.
The Church house was sometimes let out to tenants and for various
purposes, with a reservation of its use when necessary for parochial
meetings. Thus, at Wigtoft, the rent of the house brought in a
regular sum of money to the churchwardens. At Straton, in the county
of Cornwall, it was let on occasion; as, for instance, in 1513, the
accounts show a receipt of 8_d._ “of Richard Rowell for occupying of
the Church house;” and of 12_d._ “of the paynters for working in the
Church house.” At the annual fair time the Church house was let to
wandering merchants to display their goods. At St. Mary’s, Dover, in
1537, an item of parochial receipt was, “one whole year’s farme of the
churche house in Broad St., 5 shillings.”
Sometimes there was land belonging to the parish, which was let
together with the house; as, for example, at Cratfield, where, in 1534,
an acre of land was let with the “Church house.” Very probably this was
the land on which subsequently the parish shooting-butts were erected.
If there were receipts to the parish, there were, of course, also
expenses for repairs to the common house, which in some accounts appear
to be very frequent, and which shows probably that it was much used. In
one or two instances there seems to have been two floors to the house,
and in one of these instances these were let out separately, one of the
two tenants being a woman.
In many cases it is clear that cooking was done on the premises for the
parish meetings. In some Wiltshire accounts there is evidence of this,
and of utensils of various kinds being kept in the house for parochial
feasting and for ministering to the poor. The householders made merry
and collected money for church purposes, and the younger people had
dancing and bowls in many places, “while the ancients sat gravely by.”
At St. Dunstan’s, in Canterbury, there were two dozen trenchers and
spoons, and one annual dinner is mentioned.
* * * * *
Dr. Jessopp thus speaks of these Church houses--
“Frequently, indeed, one may say usually, there was a church house,
a kind of parish club, in which the gilds held their meetings and
transacted their business. Sometimes this Church-house was called
the Gild hall; for you must not make the mistake of thinking that
the Church houses were places of residence for the clergy. Nothing
of the kind. The Church house or Gild hall grew up as an institution
which had become necessary when the social life of the parish had
outgrown the accommodation which the church could afford, and when,
indeed, there was just a trifle too much boisterous merriment and too
little seriousness and sobriety to allow of the assemblies being held
in the church at all. The Church-house in many places became one of
the most important buildings in a parish, and in the little town of
Dereham, in Norfolk, the Church-house or Gild hall is still, I think,
the largest house in the town. When the great fire took place at
Dereham, in 1581, which destroyed almost the whole town, the Gild hall
or Church house, from being well built of stone, was almost the only
building in the place which escaped the terrible conflagration.”
The owners of the Church house, or “Court house,” as it was sometimes
called, were, of course, the churchwardens, as trustees of the
parishioners, and they made all the necessary arrangements to let or
lease it. At Berkhampstead “they always reserved to themselves the
right of using the great loft”, which apparently occupied the whole
upper story, as well at other times as when they kept the feast. It was
in this common hall, evidently, that some of the property of the parish
was kept ready for use. At Pilton, in Somerset, for example, there is
mentioned “a slegge to break stones at the quarey;” and the “eight
tabyle clothes” point to parish dinners.
One of the ways of eliciting good-will among the parishioners, and also
of making a profit for the common chest, was the “church ale.” This was
a parish meeting at which cakes and small beer were purchased from the
churchwardens, and consumed for the good of the parish. No doubt there
were amusements of various kinds during the _potatio_, and there was
generally a collection. At Cratfield, for instance, in 1490, the chief
source of income was from the “church ales.” There were about five of
these parish feasts held in each year, and one of them was instituted
by a parishioner, William Brews, who left nine shillings in his will
for that purpose. Very commonly a collection for the expenses of the
common amusements was made by the working men on the first Monday after
Twelfth night--the first Monday of work after the Christmas holidays.
They drew a plough round to the various houses, asking for donations,
and from this the day became known as “Plough Monday.”
Mr. Peacock, in the _Archæological Journal_ (vol. xl.), has given
some interesting particulars he has been able to gather about the
village “ales.” The drink itself was apparently a sweet beverage made
with hops or bitter herbs. It was not the same as the more modern
beer; but was less heavy, and hardly an intoxicant. The meeting was
by no means devoid of the religious aspect, and to some extent its
purpose and connection with the church secured this. Cups were used
which were frequently dedicated, especially the general or loving
cup, to saints. At Boston there was a tankard named after St. Thomas.
Archbishop Scrope, of York, attached an indulgence to one such cup:
“unto all them that drinks of this cope X days of pardon.” In these
days, no doubt, such a curious mingling of things sacred and profane
will appear incongruous; but in the Middle Ages Christian life was a
much simpler organization than it became after the days of Henry VIII.
Religion was before that period a part of the people’s daily life, and
its influence overflowed into all the social amusements of the people.
As already pointed out, the authority of the Church settled most of the
minor difficulties, disputes, and quarrels of the nation without the
assistance of the State. Its vitality was everywhere visible. Justices
of the peace and police magistrates were then wholly unknown. The manor
court and the parson in his Sunday pulpit settled everything. So, too,
the “ales” were under the protection of the Church, and took place
with its distinct encouragement.
Mr. Peacock thus sketches the probable appearance of one of these halls
for holding the “church ale”--
“We must picture to ourselves a long, low room with an ample
fireplace, or rather a big open chimney occupying one end with a vast
hearth. Here the cooking would be done, and the water boiled for
brewing the church ale. There would be, no doubt, a large oak table in
the middle, with benches around, and a lean-to building on one side to
act as a cellar.”
Just as all the churches were made beautiful by religious paintings, so
probably the Church house--the people’s hall--was made gay and bright
with decoration, permanent or temporary.
At these Church feasts there was an important factor--the collection.
Dr. Jessopp speaks about this feature of parochial life--
“Among the most profitable sources of revenue known to the wardens
were the great festive entertainments called the _Church ales_.
They have almost their exact counterparts in our modern _public
dinners_ for charitable (?) purposes, such as the annual dinner for
the literary fund, or for the Corporation of the Sons of the Clergy;
and the _public teas_ so common among the Nonconformist bodies.
They were held in the Church houses, which were well furnished with
all the necessary appliances for cooking, brewing, and for giving
accommodation for a large company. Often a generous parishioner would
provide a bullock or a sheep or two for the entertainment, and another
good-natured man would offer a quarter of malt to be brewed for the
occasion. The skins of the slaughtered sheep are often entered on the
credit side of the accounts, and occasionally smaller contributions of
spices and other condiments were offered. Of course, the inevitable
collection followed; and, according to the goodness of the feast, the
number of the guests, or their satisfaction with the arrangements
made, the amount of donations was large or small.”
To take an example or two of these collections: at Walberswick, in the
county of Suffolk, in 1453, the “church ales” produced 13_s._ 4_d._; at
Bishop Stortford, in 1489, two parish gatherings brought in £4 6_s._
8_d._ to the common exchequer. At times, too, various neighbouring
parishes would unite their forces and have a joint church ale. At
Yatton, in Somerset, for example, the parishioners both entertained
and were entertained by a neighbouring parish; and in the “Book of the
accomptes of Bramley church” are entered “in expenses of the parish
of Silchester--5_s._”; “in expenses of the parish of Herteley--2_s._
4_d._” At Shire, in the county of Surrey, an ale was held at Pentecost
in 18 Henry VII. which produced 56_s._: of this sum Albury contributed
12_s._, Wotton 5_s._, Abinger 5_s._, and Ewhurst 6_s._ 8_d._ Out of
this sum, 17_s._ 5_d._ was expended over the provisions for the feast,
and the residue was the amount available for the common fund. In 1536,
in the same place, there is an example of a private entertainment
given for the benefit of the parish. Thus was “a drinking made by John
Redford at his own expense, from strangers attending at his instance,
£7 3_s._ 4_d._” In the parish at Bramley there were apparently a whole
series of dinners and suppers in the week of Whitsuntide. These are
worth giving in full, as they have not previously been printed.
_Receipts._
1531-2. Kyng ale on White Sunday, 10_s._ 9_d._--at soppar, 20_s._
7_d._
On Monday at dinner, 2_s._--at suppar, 10_s._ 7_d._
On Tuesday at dinner, 6_s._ 9_d._
On the said Tuesday of the parish of Pamber, 4_s._
On the said Tuesday of the parish of Strathfieldsay, 9_s._
On the said Tuesday at supper, 10_s._ 6_d._
On the Wednesday at dinner, 13_s._ 6_d._
_Received_ for calf and sheep skin, 21_d._
At supper on Trinity Sunday, 12_s._ 6_d._
For tapping money, 7_s._ 6_d._
The payments made by the wardens for the above series of entertainments
are--
Towards the Kyng ale to Alys Carter 6 bushells whete, 6_s._ 4_d._
To Mr. Vycar for 3 bushells whete, 3_s._
8 barrells of bere, 13_s._ 8_d._
To John Redyng for 2 calves, 6_s._ 8_d._
To Richard Tyrry for 1 calf, 2_s._ 8_d._
To William Littlework for 2 wethers, 5_s._ 5_d._
To Henry Whyte for a barren ewe and 3 lambs, 7_s._
For geese and pyg with hare, 17_d._
To Hugh Carter’s wife for chekyns, 6_d._
Anne Acre for butter and eggs, 6_d._
For woode, 21_d._
For mynstrell, 20_d._
For rushes and making clene the barn, 3_d._
For spices, 4_d._
To Symon Redyng and his wife (and his moder above), 12_d._
_Hock-days._--In many parishes there was a feast celebrated, according
to some, in memory of the massacre of the Danes in A.D. 1002. It was
called _Hock-day_ and _Hock-tyde_, and seems to have been specially
the women’s feast in the parish. The second Monday and Tuesday
after Easter were the Hock-tyde days, on which, with some sportive
traditional customs, money was collected for parish purposes. According
to an early custom, women seized and bound men and then demanded a
small payment for their release. This seems to have been prohibited,
and then recourse was had to stopping roadways and bridges with ropes,
and demanding a toll from all men who desired to pass. For example, at
Shire in Surrey in 1536, 8_s._ are entered in the accounts, as coming
“from the collection of pennies by the married women on Hokmonday.”
In the accounts of St. Mary the Great, Cambridge, in 1518, there
are two entries of receipt for Hockday money: “_Item_ Receyved of
Mistres Sabyn, Mistress Butt, Mistres Halbed and other wyfys of money
gathered by them on Hockmonday--20 shillings ... and _Memorandum_ that
there remayneth in the hands of Kateryn Hawes in halfpenys of the
gatheryng on Hockmonday--2_s._ 4_d._” So also in the accounts of St.
Mary-at-Hill, London, for 1511-12, there is this item: “_Received_ of
the Gadryng of hok monday by the wemen 20_s._: _Rec._ of the Gadryng
on Tewysday 4_s._” In the parish of SS. Edmund and Thomas, Salisbury,
the women paid a composition to escape “binding” on the Tuesday of
Hocktide. In the year 1499-1500, for example, there is the following
entry in the accounts: “_Received_ of divers wives and maidens to save
them from binding in Hok Tuesday in all the year, 5 shillings.” In
another account we learn that the “maidens” kept a bridge over which
all had to pass on this Hock Monday, and that they gathered much in the
way of fees for passengers. It may be here remarked that in the way of
raising money for parish work, or, in particular, for the beautifying
of their churches, the women-folk were in no ways behind the men. There
are constant notices of gifts, etc., in the parish accounts; and such
entries as one at Walberswick in Suffolk, in 1496: “By a gaderyng of
the wyves in the towne for a glass wyndow, 9 shillings,” are common
features in the mediæval accounts.
The women-folk also had their feast at the Church house on certain
days when the parish came together for the purpose of dancing. In
1538, at Salisbury, there is a receipt from the “wyves daunce.” At St.
Ewen’s, Bristol, there was special “dancing money,” and at Croscombe in
Somerset an item of receipt of 6_s._ in 1483 is said to be collected
“of the wives’ dancing.” Another form of collection by women in some
places was called “Robin Hood penny.”
In some parishes the supplying of the ale, etc., for the parish
entertainments no doubt led to the churchwardens becoming purveyors of
ale, etc., at other times, the profits obtained by this trading going
to swell the parish receipts. Bishop Hobhouse remarks upon this in
the case of Tintinhull, a Somerset parish. The church house was the
focus of the social life in this neighbourhood. There was, at first,
a small place for making the sacred wafer and the “blessed bread.” It
grew by degrees into a bakery to supply all. Then brewing was added,
and the sale of ale to those who wanted it. Apparently the bakery and
the brewing utensils were let out to those who wanted to make their
own bread and beer; but in the reign of Henry VII. a proper house was
procured by the parish, and a woman, “Agnes Cook,” was placed in it to
manage the increasing business.
At Bishop Stortford and elsewhere, also, there is evidence in the
accounts of brewing being carried on for the benefit of the parish. In
some cases, the purchases of malt are considerable, and suggests that
the production of ale was for sale generally to any in the parish.
Probably no single book gives such a vivid picture of the social side
of mediæval parochial life as the _Durham Halmote Rolls_, published by
the “Surtees Society.”
“It is hardly a figure of speech,” writes Mr. Booth, in the preface
to this volume, “to say we have in (these rolls) village life
photographed. The dry record of tenures is peopled by men and women
who occupied them, whose acquaintance we make in these records under
the various phases of village life. We see them in their tofts
surrounded by their crofts, with their gardens of pot-herbs. We see
how they ordered the affairs of the village, when summoned by the
bailiff to the vill to consider matters which affected the common weal
of the community. We hear of their trespasses and wrongdoings, and how
they were remedied or punished; of their strifes and contentions, and
how they were repressed; of their attempts, not always ineffective,
to grasp the principle of co-operation as shown by their by-laws;
of their relations with the Prior, who represented the convent, and
alone stood in relation of lord. He appears always to have dealt with
his tenants, either in person or through his officers, with much
consideration; and in the imposition of fines we find them invariably
tempering justice with mercy.”
In fact, as the picture of mediæval village life among the tenants of
the Durham monastery is displayed in the pages of this interesting
volume, it would seem almost as if one was reading of some Utopia of
dreamland. Many of the things that in these days advanced politicians
would desire to see introduced into the village communities of modern
England, to relieve the deadly dulness of country life, were seen
in Durham and Cumberland in full working order in pre-Reformation
days. Local provisions for public health and general convenience
are evidenced by the watchful vigilance of the village officials
over the water supplies, the care taken to prevent the fouling of
useful streams, and stringent by-laws as to the common place for
clothes-washing, and the times for emptying and cleansing ponds and
mill-dams. Labour was lightened and the burdens of life eased by
co-operation on an extensive scale. A common mill ground the corn,
and the flour was baked into bread at a common oven. A common smith
worked at a common forge, and common shepherds and herdsmen watched the
sheep and cattle of various tenants, which were pastured on the fields
common to the whole village community. The pages of the volume contain
numerous instances of the kindly consideration for their tenants which
characterized the monastic proprietors, and the relation between
them was rather that of rentchargers than of men claiming absolute
ownership. In fact, as the editor of the volume says--
“Notwithstanding the rents, duties, and services, and the fine paid
on entering, the inferior tenants of the Prior had a beneficial
interest in their holdings, which gave rise to a recognized system of
tenant-right, which we may see growing into a customary right; the
only limitation of the tenant’s right being inability, from poverty or
other cause, to pay rent or perform the accustomed services.”
When the monastery of Durham was suppressed and its place of the
Cathedral Prior and Monks taken by a Dean and Chapter, it was found,
by the middle of Elizabeth’s reign, that the change was gravely
detrimental to the interests of the tenants, and the new body soon
made it plain that they had no intention of respecting prescriptive
rights. This appears clearly in a document printed in the same volume,
about which the editor says--
“A review of the Halmote Rolls leaves no room for doubt that the
tenants, other than those of the demesne lands, during the period
covered by the text, had a recognized tenant-right in their holdings,
which was ripening into a customary freehold estate; and we might
have expected to find, in the vills or townships in which the Dean
and Chapter possessed manorial rights, the natural outcome of this
tenant-right in the existence of copyhold or customary freehold
estates at the present time, as we find in the manors of the see of
Durham. It is a well-known fact, however, that there are none. The
reason is, that soon after the foundation of the Cathedral body, the
Dean and Chapter refused to recognize a customary estate in their
tenants.”
The presence of “minstrels” at parish dinners and feasts has already
been noticed. It is probable that these musicians were more frequently
employed to enliven “the deadly dulness of village life” than might
now be supposed. At Tatton, from which many of these illustrations
have been taken, the payments for “minstrels” in the sixteenth century
come very regularly into the parish accounts; and it seems hardly very
far-fetched to suggest that these musicians probably went from one
parish feast-day to another, as at the present day the brass band goes
from one village club-day celebration to another.
* * * * *
A word may be usefully said about the effect of religion on the family
life generally. Regularity of attendance at all religious celebrations
in the church was universal, or practically so. This was the case, not
on account of any ecclesiastical compulsion--although, in case of need,
it could be, and no doubt was exerted--but, as far as it is possible
to judge, the church services were attended and religious duties
fulfilled, as part of the Christian life which all desired to follow,
and in deference to a healthy public opinion which, in these matters,
did not admit of backsliding.
The father’s and the mother’s duty of bringing up their children to
know God’s law and to keep it, was fully understood.
“Every man and woman,” says the author of _Dives and Pauper_, “after
his degree, is bound to do his business to know God’s law that he is
bound to keep. And fathers, mothers, godfathers and godmothers be
bound to teach their children God’s law or else do them to be taught.
“St. Austin saith that each man in his own household should do the
office of bishop in teaching and correcting of common things, and
therefore saith the law that the office of teaching and chastising
belongeth not only to the bishop but to every governor after his
manner and his degree: to the poor man governing his poor household;
to the rich man governing his folk; to the husband governing his wife;
to the father and mother governing their children.”
Filial affection was strongly inculcated in the common teachings. In
a will of one John Sothil of Dewsbury, in 1500, is expressed the last
wish of one who had evidently been brought up to reverence his own
parents. “Also I pray, Thomas my son, in my name and for the love of
God, that he never strive with his moder, as he will have my blessing,
for he shall find her curtous to del with.”
Grace with meals--before and after--was not only the law, but the
practice. To ask God’s blessing over what His bounty had provided,
and to thank Him afterwards, was an elementary duty of all living the
Christian life. Children were taught the importance of associating God
and His providence with their meals, and, as in so many other matters,
instruction was conveyed in some simple rhymes like--
“He that without grace sitteth down to eate
Forgetting to give God thanks for his meate
And riseth againe letting Grace overpasse
Sittes down like an oxe and riseth like an asse.”
Children were taught to rise early, as the _Babe of Nurture_ says--
“Ryse you early in the morning
For it hath propertyes three
Holynesse, health and happy welth,
As my father taught mee.
At syxe of the clocke, without delay
Use commonly to ryse
And give God thanks for thy good rest
When thou openest thy eyes.”
The young were taught also to pay respect to their elders, and in
particular to their parents. They were to be reverential in their
manner and to avoid giving them displeasure. The parent, on his part,
was to refrain from setting a bad example, but was to see that, the
first thing in the morning,--
“Or he do eny worldli deede,”
his son was to lift up his heart to God, and pray that God may lead him
through the day without sin. At the close of the day, after prayers,
the child was to be taught to fall asleep thinking of heavenly things:
with some such thought as--
“Upon my ryght syde y me laye
Blesid lady to the y prey
For the teres that ye lete
Upon your swete sonnys feete
Send me grace for to slepe
And good dremys for to mete
Slepyng wakyng til morowe daye bee
Our Lorde is the frute, Our Ladye the tree
Blessid be the blossom that sprange lady of thee.
In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.”
The inventories of parish churches and the churchwardens’ accounts show
how very common a feature the religious plays--“miracle or mystery
plays,” as they were generally called--were in the village life of the
fifteenth century. It requires very little examination of the “books”
of those plays that have come down to us to see that these sacred
dramas must have been most powerful aids to the religious teaching
of the Church among the simple and unlettered villagers of England,
and even among the crowds which thronged great cities like Coventry,
Chester, and York to witness the traditional acting of the more
elaborate performances.
As to their popularity there can be no question. Dramatic
representations of the chief events in the life of our Lord, etc.,
were intimately associated with the religious purposes for which they
were originally produced. They were played on Sundays and feast-days,
sometimes in the aisles of the churches, in church porches and
churchyards. The author of _Dives and Pauper_ says--
“Spectacles, plays, and dances that are used on great feasts, as
they are done principally for devotion and honest mirth, and to
teach men to love God the more, are lawful if the people be not
thereby hindered from God’s service, nor from hearing God’s word,
and provided that in such spectacles and plays there is mingled no
error against the faith of Holy Church and good living. All other
plays are prohibited, both on holidays and work-days (according to
the law), upon which the gloss saith that the representation in
plays at Christmas of Herod and the Three Kings, and other pieces of
the Gospel, both then and at Easter and other times, is lawful and
commendable.”
There can be no reasonable doubt that such simple dramatic
representations of the chief mysteries of religion and the principal
events in our Lord’s life, or of some incidents in the lives of the
saints, served to impress these truths and fix these events upon the
imaginations of the audiences that witnessed them, and to make them
in the true sense of the words “vivid realities.” The religious drama
was the handmaiden of the Church, and it helped to instruct the people
at large and, quite as much as the painted wall or pictured window,
formed a “book” ever open and easily understood, graphically setting
forth and illustrating truths which formed the groundwork of the formal
instruction in the Sunday sermon.
Whatever we may in these days be inclined to think of these simple
stories as literary works, or however we may be inclined now to smile
at some of the “stage situations” and odd characters, there can be no
doubt what the people for whom they were written and acted thought. “In
great devotion and discretion,” says the chronicler, “Higden published
the story of the Bible, that the simple people might understand in
their own language.”
The subjects treated of in these plays were very varied, although
those that were acted on the great festivals of Christmas, Easter,
the Ascension, etc., generally had some relation to the mystery
then celebrated. In such a collection of plays as that known as the
_Towneley Mysteries_, we have examples of the subjects treated of in
the religious plays of the period. The collection makes no pretence
of being complete, and yet it contains some three and thirty plays,
including the Creation, the death of Abel, the story of Noah, the
sacrifice of Isaac, and other Old Testament histories; a great number
of scenes from the New Testament, such as the Annunciation, the
Visitation, Cæsar Augustus, scenes from the Nativity, the Shepherds,
the Magi, etc., as well as various scenes from the Passion and
Crucifixion, the Parable of the Talents, etc.
Any one who will take the trouble to read--not skim--the plays as
printed in this volume cannot fail to be impressed not only with the
vivid picture of the special scenes, but by the extensive knowledge of
the Bible which the production of these plays must have imparted to
those who listened to them, and by the way that, incidentally, the most
important religious truths are conveyed in the crude and rugged verse.
Again and again, for instance, the entire dependence of all created
things upon the providence of God Almighty is asserted and illustrated.
Thus, the confession of God’s Omnipotence, put into the mouth of
Noah at the beginning of the play of “Noah and his Sons,” contains a
profession of belief in the Holy Trinity, and a declaration concerning
the work of the Three Persons in the world. It describes the creation
of the world; the fall of Lucifer; the sin of our first parents, and
their expulsion from Paradise. In the story of Abraham, too, the prayer
of the patriarch, with which it begins--
“Adonai, thou God very,
Thou hear us when to Thee we call,
As Thou are He that bset may,
Thou art most succour and help of all,”
gives a complete _résumé_ of the Bible history before the days of
Abraham, with the purpose of showing that all things are in God’s
hands, and that the complete obedience of all creatures whom He has
made is due to Him.
Whatever we may think of these religious dramas now, there can be no
doubt that the people in the pre-Reformation days delighted in them,
and that they formed one of the most popular features in mediæval
parochial life.
CHAPTER XII
GUILDS AND FRATERNITIES
Every account of a mediæval parish must necessarily include some
description of the work of fraternities and guilds. Although these
societies, absolutely speaking, were not existent in every parish,
still they were so very general that they may be reckoned certainly as
one feature of pre-Reformation parochial life. It is hardly necessary
to say much upon the subject of guild origins. Their existence dates
from the earliest times, and they probably were one result of the
natural desire to realize some of the obvious benefits arising from
combination, in carrying out purposes of common utility. As a system of
widespread practical institutions, “English guilds,” says Mr. Toulmin
Smith, who may be regarded as our great authority on this matter,
“are older than any kings of England.” The oldest of our ancient
laws--those, for example, of Alfred, of Athelstan and Ina--assume the
existence of guilds, to some one of which, as a matter of course, every
one was supposed to belong. The same author thus defines the scope and
purpose of the ancient guilds. “They were,” he says, “associations of
those living in the same neighbourhood, who remembered that they had,
as neighbours, common obligations.” They were different entirely from
modern partnerships or trading companies, for their main characteristic
was to set up something higher than personal gain and mere materialism
as the main object of man’s existence, and to make the teaching of love
to one’s neighbour, not merely accepted as a hollow dogma of morality,
but known and felt as a habit of life.
An examination of the existing records leads to a general division of
mediæval guilds into two classes--_Craft_ or _Trade_ Associations and
_Religious_ Societies; or, as some prefer now to call them, _Social_
Guilds. It is with these latter that we are here chiefly concerned.
The former, as their name implies, had as the special object of their
existence the protection of some kind of work, trade, or handicraft;
and in this, for practical purposes, we may include those associations
of traders or merchants known under the name of “Guild-Merchants.”
Such, for instance, were the great Companies of the City of London;
and it was in reality the plea that they were trading societies, which
saved them from the general destruction which overtook all fraternities
and associations in the sixteenth century. The division of guilds
into the two classes named above is, however, after all, a matter of
convenience, rather than a real distinction, grounded on fact. All
guilds, no matter for what special purpose they were founded, had the
same general characteristic principle of brotherly love and social
charity; and no guild, so far as I have been able to discover, was
divorced from the ordinary religious observances commonly practised in
those days.
In speaking, therefore, of the purposes of what I have called
religious or social guilds, I must not be thought to exclude craft or
trade guilds. It is very often supposed that, for the most part, what
are called religious guilds existed for the purpose of promoting or
encouraging some religious practice, such as attendance at church on
certain days; taking part in ecclesiastical processions; the recitation
of offices and prayers, and the like. Without doubt there were such
societies existing in pre-Reformation days, such as, for example, was
the great Guild of Corpus Christi, in York, which counted its members
by thousands. But such associations were the exception, not the
rule. It is really astonishing to find how small a proportion these
_ecclesiastical_ or purely religious guilds formed of the whole number
of associations known as guilds. The origin of the mistaken notion is
obvious.
In mediæval days--that is, in the days when such guilds flourished--the
word “religious” had a wider, and in many ways a truer signification
than has obtained in later times. Religion was understood to include
the exercise of the two commandments of charity--the love of God, and
the love of one’s neighbour; and the exercises of practical charity,
to which guild brethren were bound by their guild statutes, were
considered as much religious practices as the attendance at church, or
the taking part in any ecclesiastical procession. In these days, as
Mr. Brentano, in his essay _On the History and Development of Gilds_,
has pointed out, most of the objects, to carry out which the guilds
existed, would be called _Social_ duties; but then, in mediæval times,
they were regarded as objects of Christian charity. “Mutual assistance,
the aid of the poor, of the helpless, the sick, of strangers,
pilgrims, and prisoners, the burial of the dead, even the keeping of
schools and schoolmasters,” and other such-like objects of Christian
charity, were held to be “exercises of religion.”
By whichever name we prefer to call them, the character and purpose
of these mediæval guilds cannot in reality be misunderstood.
Broadly speaking, they were the benefit societies and the provident
associations of the Middle Ages. They undertook towards their members
the duties now frequently performed by burial clubs, by hospitals,
by almshouses, and by guardians of the poor. Not infrequently they
are found acting for the public good of the community in the mending
of roads and in the repair of bridges. They looked to the private
good of their members in the same way that insurance companies to-day
compensate for loss by fire or accident. The very reason of their
existence was to afford mutual aid, and by timely contributions to
meet the pecuniary demands which were constantly arising from burials,
legal exactions, penal fines, and all other kinds of payments and
compensations. Mr. Toulmin Smith thus defines their object: “The early
English guild was an institution of local self-help, which, before the
poor-laws were invented, took the place, in old times, of the modern
Friendly or Benefit Society, but with a higher aim; while it joined
all classes together in the care of the needy and for objects of
common welfare, it did not neglect the forms and practice of religion,
justice, and morality,” which, it may be added, was indeed the
mainspring of their life and action.
“The Guild lands,” writes Mr. Thorold Rogers, “were a very important
economical fact in the social condition of early England. The Guilds
were the benefit societies of the time, from which impoverished
members could be and were aided. It was an age in which the keeping
of accounts was common and familiar. Beyond question, the treasurers
of the village Guild rendered as accurate an annual statement to the
members of their fraternity as a bailiff did to his lord.... It is
quite certain that the town and country guilds obviated pauperism in
the middle ages, assisted in steadying the price of labour, and formed
a permanent centre for those associations which fulfilled the function
that in more recent times trade unions have striven to satisfy.”
An examination of the various articles of association contained in the
returns made into the Chancery in 1389, and other similar documents,
shows how wide was the field of Christian charity covered by these
“fraternities.” First and foremost among such works of religion must be
reckoned the burial of the dead, regulations as to which are invariably
to be found in all the guild statutes. Then came, very generally,
provisions for help to the poor, sick, and aged. In some, assistance
was to be given to those who were overtaken by misfortune, whose goods
had been damaged or destroyed by fire or flood, or had been diminished
by loss or robbery; in others, money was found as a loan to such as
needed temporary assistance. In the guild at Ludlow, in Shropshire, for
instance, “any good girl of the guild had a dowry provided for her if
her father was too poor to find one himself.” The “guild-merchant” of
Coventry kept a lodging-house with thirteen beds, “to lodge poor folk
coming through the land on pilgrimage or other work of charity ... with
a keeper of the house and a woman to wash the pilgrims’ feet.” A guild
at York found beds and attendance for poor strangers, and the Guild of
Holy Cross in Birmingham kept almshouses for the poor in the town. In
Hampshire, the guild of St. John at Winchester, which comprised men and
women of all sorts and conditions, supported a hospital for the needy
and infirm of the city.
Speaking of the poor, Bishop Hobhouse, in his preface to the Somerset
churchwardens’ accounts, says--
“I can only suppose that the brotherhood tie was so strongly realized
by the community (of the parish) that the weaker were succoured by
the stronger, as out of a family store. The brotherhood tie was, no
doubt, very much stronger then, when the village community was from
generation to generation so unalloyed by anything foreign, when all
were knit together by one faith and one worship and close kindred,
but, further than this, the Guild-fellowship must have enhanced all
the other bonds in drawing men to spare their worldly goods as a
common stock. Covertly, if not overtly, the guildsman bound himself
to help his needy brother in sickness and age, as he expected his
fellow-guildsman to do for him in his turn of need; and these bonds,
added to a far stronger sense of the duty of children towards aged
parents than is now found, did, I conceive, suffice for the relief of
the poor, aided only by the direct almsgiving which flowed from the
parsonage house, or in favoured localities, from the doles or broken
meat of a monastery.”
For the purpose of collecting money for parochial needs, the services
of the various fraternities were constantly requisitioned. In some
places, as at St. Dunstan’s, Canterbury, the authorized collectors
wore badges, by which they could be recognized as such; at others, as
at St. Peter’s Cheap, London, the various brotherhoods were connected
with some special chapel, or altar, or statue, and regularly collected
for the particular end of their society. In some parishes these
religious fraternities were more numerous than many at this day would
be inclined to suppose. At St. Dunstan’s, Canterbury, just mentioned,
there was first the brotherhood of the “Schaft,” which seems to have
been a general society embracing the whole parish, and which possessed
property, such as malt, barley, wheat, cattle, and sheep. Besides this,
there was the fraternity of St. Anne, which included women, and that
of St. John; there were also small groups under their wardens; and of
these we have the wardens of St. John’s light, those of St. Anne’s
light, and those of St. Katherine. Mr. Cowper, the editor of these
accounts, on this remarks: “These all go to show what life and activity
there was in the little parish, which never wanted willing men to
devote their time and influence to the management of their own affairs.”
In times of common need, or when some great work of repair or of
decoration was undertaken by the parish for their church, the various
“fraternities” are found contributing out of their peculiar “stores”
to the object. At Ashburton, for example, in 1486-87, a “silver foot”
was made to the parish cross, and also the weather-cock got out of
order and had to be seen to. To both of these objects there were
contributions from “the stores of St. Nicholas,” and “of St. George,”
etc. In fact, in this parish there were apparently about a dozen of
these confraternities, namely: “the Stores of the B. V. Mary;” of “the
Junior torches;” of St. George, St. Margaret, St. Clement; of “the
Wyvyn store” of B. V. Mary; of St. Thomas of Canterbury; of St. James
and of St. Giles. Some of these had as much as forty shillings at one
time as a fund under their administration.
Some of the “fraternities” were merely spiritual associations, which
helped to strengthen the bond of brotherhood between parishes. One
such existed in connection with the Cathedral of Lichfield, called
the “Fraternity of the Brethren and Sisters of St. Chad.” Enrolled
as members are many bishops, abbots, priors, and other religious
superiors, besides priests and all sorts and conditions of lay people.
The priests were all pledged to say Masses for the welfare of the
associates, living or dead. Thus, in each of the abbeys of Darley,
Burton, and Shrewsbury, 100 Masses were said yearly for this end; at
Trentham Priory 60 Masses; and at the Convent of Derby 300 psalters by
the Benedictine Nuns were said for the associates. In the Cathedral
church of Lichfield also four Masses were said daily, two for the
living and two for the dead members; and in every associated parish 30
Masses were said during the year. In all these churches, every Sunday
before the Holy Water, the “Our Father” was said by priest and people,
“with hands raised,” followed by a versicle and prayer to St. Chad. In
the fifteenth century, when the bishop gave an indulgence to all those
who were members of the fraternity, he states that this union of prayer
already comprised 2434 Masses and 452 psalters yearly.
The organization of these societies was the same as that which has
existed in similar associations up to the time of our modern trade
unions. A meeting was held, at which officers were elected and accounts
audited; fines for non-acceptance of office were frequently imposed,
as well as for absence from the common meeting. Often members had to
declare, on oath, that they would fulfil their voluntary obligations,
and would keep secret the affairs of the society. Persons of ill repute
were not admitted, and members who disgraced the fraternity were
expelled. For example, the first guild statutes printed by Mr. Toulmin
Smith are those of Garlekhith, London. They begin--
“In worship of God Almighty our Creator and His Mother, Saint Mary,
and all Saints and St. James the Apostle, a fraternity is begun by
good men in the Church of St. James at Garlekhith in London, on the
day of Saint James, the year of our Lord 1375, for the amendment of
their lives and of their souls, and to nourish greater love between
the brethren and sisters of the said brotherhood.”
Each of them have sworn on the Book to perform the points underwritten--
“First, all those that are, or shall be, in the said brotherhood
shall be of good life, condition, and behaviour, and shall love God
and Holy Church and their neighbours, as Holy Church commands.” Then,
after various provisions as to meetings and payments to be made to
the general fund, the statutes order that “if any of the aforesaid
brethren fall into such distress that he hath nothing and cannot, on
account of old age or sickness, help himself, if he has been in the
brotherhood seven years, and during that time has performed all the
duties, he shall have every week after from the common box fourteen
pence (_i.e._ about £1 of our money) for the rest of his life, unless
he recovers from his distress.” In one form or other this provision
for the assistance of needy members is repeated in the statutes of
almost every guild. Some provide for help in case of distress coming
“through any chance, through fire or water, thieves or sickness, or any
other haps.” Some, besides this kind of aid, add, “and if it so befall
that he be young enough to work, and he fall into distress, so that he
have nothing of his own to help himself with, then the brethren shall
help him, each with a portion as he pleases in the way of charity.”
Others furnish loans from the common fund to enable brethren to tide
over temporary difficulties. “And if the case falleth that any of the
brotherhood have need to borrow a certain sum of silver, he (can) go
to the keepers of the box and take what he hath need of, so that the
sum be not so large that one may not be helped as another, and that he
leave a sufficient pledge, or else find a sufficient security among
the brotherhood.” Some, again, make the contributions to poor brethren
a personal obligation on the members, such as a farthing a week from
each of the brotherhood, unless the distress has been caused by folly
or waste. Others extend their Christian charity to relieve distress
beyond the circle of the brotherhood--that is, of any “whosoever falls
into distress, poverty, lameness, blindness, sent by the grace of God
to them, even if he be a thief proven, he shall have sevenpence a week
from the brothers and sisters to assist him in his need.” Some of the
guilds in seaside districts provide for help in case of “loss through
the sea,” and there is little doubt that in mediæval days the great
work carried on by such a body as the Royal Lifeboat Society would
have been considered a work of religion, and the fitting object of a
religious guild.
Dr. Jessopp has described for us the functions of these religious
brotherhoods--
“Besides all this there were small associations, called Gilds, the
members of which were bound to devote a certain portion of their time
and money and their energies to keep up the special commemoration
and the special worship of some Saint’s chapel or shrine, which was
sometimes kept up in a corner of the church, and provided with an
altar of its own, and served by a chaplain who was actually paid
by the subscriptions or free-will offerings of the members of
the gild whose servant he was. Frequently there were half a dozen
of these brotherhoods, who met on different days in the year; and
frequently--indeed, one may say usually--there was a church house,
a kind of parish club, in which the gilds held their meetings and
transacted their business.”
In the account of the “Building of Bodmin Church” in the fifteenth
century we have an example of the working of this guild system. Every
one appears to have given according to his means, and even generously.
There were personal gifts, like that of an “hold woman,” who gave
3_s._ 2½_d._; and another woman, in addition to her subscription,
sold her “crokk for 20_d._” and gave the money to the Church. But the
success of the enterprise evidently is to be attributed to the guilds
which existed at that time in great numbers and in a most flourishing
state in Bodmin. “Religious life,” we are told, “permeated society,
particularly in the fifteenth century.” In Bodmin at that time almost
every inhabitant seems to have been included in one or other of the
many fraternities. Indeed, the spirit of association seems to have been
so strong at this time that various groups of people joined themselves
together for the purpose of making a common gift. In this way we read
that “the young maidens of Fore Street and Bore Street” gave a common
subscription in addition to the sums received from the Guild of Virgins
in the same streets.
These interesting accounts also give the names of no fewer than forty
guilds, all more or less connected with the parish church of Bodmin.
Of these, five are trade guilds: the skinners and glovers under the
patronage of St. Petroc; the smiths under St. Dunstan and St. Eloy;
the cordwainers under St. Anian; the millers under St. Martin; and the
tailors and drapers under St. John the Baptist. All the rest of these
fraternities “were,” says the editor of these accounts, “established
for social and religious objects, for the glory of God and the good of
man.” For the “wax gathering,” money was received from (1) the Guild
of St. David in “forestreet;” (2) St. Luke; (3) St. Michael; (4) Holy
Trinity; (5) St. Leodgarius; (6) St. Clare; (7) St. Gregory, Pope;
(8) St. Thomas; (9) B. V. Mary in the porch of the church; (10) Holy
Trinity; (11) St. Katherine; (12) St. Anian; (13) St. Stephen; (14) St.
Mary Magdalene; (15) St. James; (16) Holy Cross; (17) B. V. Mary in the
chancel; (18) B. V. Mary in the chapel of St. Gregory; (19) St. Loy;
(20) St. Petroc; (21) St. John; (22) St. Thomas “in Church hay;” (23)
Corpus Christi.
One purpose of distinct utility to the parish, which was served by
the guilds, was the provision of additional priests for the services
of the church. In this they had the same object as the founders of
chantries had in establishing them. Thus, to take an example, in the
“Chantry Certificates” for Suffolk the purpose of the Guild of the
Holy Ghost at Beccles is stated to have been to keep a priest “to
celebrate in the church,” to “pay the tithes, fifteenths and other
taxes,” and to contribute 40_s._ a year to the poor. A note appended
says that “Beccles is a great and populous town” of “800 houseling”
people, and “the said priest is aiding unto the curate there, who
without help is not able to discharge the said cure. The said Guild is
erected of devotion.” So, too, to take another example, in the parish
of Bingham, in Nottinghamshire, there was “a guild of our Lady to
maintain a priest;” and the Palmer’s Guild of Ludlow, sometimes called
the “Fraternity of St John,” which was maintained partly by endowments
of land and partly through the donations of its members, maintained no
fewer than ten priests out of its funds.
In reality there is hardly any good and useful purpose which can be
imagined, religious or social, to which some mediæval guild or other
was not devoted. Mr. Toulmin Smith, after examination of the documents
relating to these fraternities, has enumerated the following as objects
for which they were founded, or at any rate worked: (1) relief in
poverty--a very general object; (2) sickness; (3) old age; (4) loss
of sight; (5) loss of limb; (6) loss of cattle; (7) on fall of house;
(8) in making pilgrimages; (9) loss by fire; (10) loss by flood;
(11) loss by robbery; (12) shipwreck; (13) imprisonment; (14) aid in
pecuniary difficulties; (15) aid to obtain work; (16) defending in law;
(17) relief to deaf and dumb; (18) relief for leprosy; (19) dowry on
marriage or on entry into religious house; (20) repairs of roads and
bridges; (21) repairs of churches; (22) burial of the dead.
Mr. Thorold Rogers, in his _Economic Interpretation of History_, says
of the Guilds that--
“they were well-nigh universal, though they were unchartered and
informal. Their prosperity was derived from grants or charges on
land or houses made for the purpose of securing the continuance of a
religious office, much appreciated and exceeding common in the period
of English social history which precedes the Reformation, prayers or
Masses for the dead.
“The ancient tenements, which are still the property of the London
companies, were originally burdened with Masses for donors. In
the country the parochial clergy undertook the services of these
chantries.... The establishment of a Mass or chantry priest at a fixed
stipend, in a church with which he had no other relation, was a common
form of endowment. The residue, if any, of the revenue derivable from
these tenements was made the common property of the Guild, and as the
continuity of the service was the great object of its establishment,
the donor, like the modern trustee of a life income, took care that
there should be a surplus from the foundation. The land or house was
let, and the Guild consented to find the ministration which formed the
motive of the grant.”
This is very true, but it may be questioned whether Mr. Thorold Rogers
appreciated the extent to which these chantry funds were intended to
be devoted to purposes other than the performance of the specified
religious services. Certainly writers generally have treated the
question of the chantries as if they had no object but the keeping of
obits or anniversary services for the original founder and his kin.
To show what really was the case, it may be well to take a couple
of instances in Hampshire. In connection with the parish church of
Alton in the sixteenth century there were six obits or chantries.
The following is the account of these which I take from the Chantry
Certificates made by the King’s Commissioners in the first year of the
reign of Edward VI.:--
“(1) Issues of land for an obit for John Pigott; growing and coming
out of certain houses and lands in Alton, for to maintain for ever a
yearly obit there, in the tenure of Thomas Mathew of the yearly value
of 23_s._ 4_d._ Whereof to the poor 15_s._ 4_d._, to the priest and
his clerk 8_s._: (2) The same for an obit for William Reding of the
annual value of 15_s._, of which the poor were to have 10_s._ and
the priest and his clerk 5_s._: (3) The same for Alice Hacker of the
yearly value of 10_s._, of which the poor were to get 7_s._ 8_d._ and
the priest 2_s._ 4_d._: (4) Another of the value of 4_s._, the poor
getting 2_s._ 10_d._ and the priest 1_s._ 2_d._: (5) Another for the
soul of Nicholas Bailey, worth annually 11_s._, and of this 7_s._
8_d._ was intended for the poor and 3_s._ 4_d._ for the clergy: (6)
Another for Nicholas Crushelow worth 4_s._ 4_d._, the poor getting
3_s._ 1_d._ and the priest 1_s._ 3_d._”
That is to say, out of a total of 77_s._ 8_d._ the poor were to get
46_s._ 7_d._, and only 31_s._ 1_d._ was devoted to the ecclesiastical
services connected with the obits of Alton. Or, if we take the value
of money in those days as being only twelve times that of our present
money, out of a total of £36 12_s._ some £27 19_s._ went to support the
poor.
As a further example of the way in which property was left to a guild
as trustees, the case of the “Candlemas Guild” at Bury St. Edmund’s may
be cited. A few years after its foundation in 1471, one of its members
left the guild considerable property for the common purposes of the
fraternity, and for certain other specified objects. The name of the
donor was John Smith, and his will was witnessed by the Abbot and Prior
of Bury. It provided for the keep of an annual obit “devoutly,” and
for the residue of income to be kept till the appointment of every new
abbot. On that event the sum thus accumulated was to be paid to the new
abbot in lieu of the sum of money the town was bound to find at every
election. Should there be any sum over the amount necessary for this
purpose, it was to be expended in payment of the tenth or fifteenth,
or other tax imposed on the citizens by royal authority. Year by year,
at the annual meeting of the guild, the wardens were bound to give
an account of their administration of this trust. Year by year John
Smith’s will was read out at the meeting, and proclamation was made
before the anniversary of his death in the following manner: “Let us
all of charity pray for the soul of John. We put you in remembrance
that you shall not miss the keeping of his dirge and also of his Mass.”
Round the town went the crier also with the lines--
“We put you in remembrance all that the oath have made,
To come to the Mass and the dirge the souls for to glade;
All the inhabitants of this towne are bound to do the same,
To pray for the souls of John and Anne, else they be to blame;
The which John afore-rehearsed to this town hath been full kind,
Three hundred marks for this town hath paid, no penny unpaid behind.
Now we have informed you of John Smith’s will in writing as it is,
And for the great gifts that he hath given, God bring his soul to
bliss.
Amen.”
The example set by this donor to the Candlemas Guild at Bury was
followed by many others in the latter part of the fifteenth century.
For instance, “a gentlewoman,” as she calls herself, Margaret Odom,
after providing by will for the usual obit, and for a lamp to burn
before “the holie sacrament in St. James’ church,” desires that the
brethren of the guild shall devote the residue of the income arising
from certain houses and lands she has conveyed to their keeping, to
paying a priest to “say mass in the chapel of the gaol before the
prisoners there, and giving them holy water and holy bread on all
Sundays, and to give to the prisoners of the long ward of the said gaol
every week seven faggots of wood from Hallowmas (November 1) to Easter
day.”
One function of the mediæval guilds must not be altogether passed by.
This was their attendance at the great processions, and notably at
that of Corpus Christi. Some guilds, like the celebrated Corpus Christi
Guild at York, with its thousands of members, were, of course, founded
chiefly to do honour to the Blessed Sacrament. But, ordinarily, guilds
of every kind were only too ready in those days to take part in the
ecclesiastical pageants of the day. One example will suffice. It is the
Order of the Corpus Christi procession at Winchester in 1435--
“At a convocation held at the city of Winchester the Friday next
before the feast of Corpus Christi, in the 13th yere of the raigne of
King Harry the sixt, after the Conquest--it was ordained by Richard
Salter, mayor of the cytie of Winchester, John Symer and Harry Putt,
Bailiffs of the cytie aforesaid, and also by all the cytizens and
commonaltee of the same cytie: It is accorded of a certain general
processyon in the feste of Corpus Christi of diverse artyficers and
crafts within the same cytie being: that is to say: the Carpenters and
Felters shall go together first; Smythes and Barbers, second; Cooks
and Buchers, third; Shomakers with two lights, fourth; Tanners and
Tapaners, fifth; Plummers and Silkmen, sixth; Fyshers and Farryers,
seventh; Taveners, eighth; Wevyres with two lights, ninth; Fullars,
with two lights, tenth; Dyers with two lights, eleventh; Chandlers and
Brewers, twelfth; Mercers with two lights, thirteenth; Wyves with one
light and John Blak with another, fourteenth; and all these lights
shall be borne orderlie before the said procession before the prieste
of the citie. And four lyghtes of the Brethren of St. John’s shall be
borne about the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, the same day in the
procession aforesaid.”
Lastly, it may be well to give an instance of some of the laws under
which the mediæval guild system was governed. For this purpose the
Statutes of the “Guild of the Purification of our Lady” at Bury St.
Edmund’s, which were revised and renewed in 1471, may be taken as a
sample:--
1. All members were to swear obedience to the laws: were to pay 4_d._
on enrollment and 1_d._ to the light kept by the guild in the parish
church: they must also get a surety to pay 10_s._ to the property of
the fraternity on their death.
2. On becoming members all shall swear to fulfil the wills of John
Smith and Margaret Odham, which were written in English at the
beginning of the book, and which were to be read every year at the
Guild dinner on February 2. After the dinner all members of the Guild
shall kneel and say the _De profundis_ and the “prayers that long
therto” for the souls of the above founders.
3. All officers to be elected yearly.
4. All shall “have every year ther presens and speche daye at the
charnell or in the churchyard in the day of the Epiphany for the
ordynaunce and profit of the guylde. And yf any be absent of the sayde
fraternytie but if he have a reasonable excuse he shall loose a pounde
waxe.”
5. All shall come to the Guild hall “anent after evensonge the daye
of the Purification to the beadesbydding and there devoutly to praye
for all the brethrene and systerne sowles that have been in guylde
aforesaide.” For absence a fine of a pound of wax.
6. On the death of any one member all shall attend at the “Exequye and
Dirige.”
7. The Alderman and Dye (_i.e._ sword-bearer) shall have £10 to give a
dinner to the Guild out of the “crease.” The £10 to be delivered to the
next Alderman and Dye at election.
8. The Alderman and Dye to have for their trouble 3_s._ 4_d._, and one
pound and a half of wax for a torch. Also the Alderman shall have
6 gallons of ale and the Dye 4 gallons, “and every eche of the four
holders two gallons ale of the best of the guylde aforesaide.”
9. On the death of any member, all shall contribute ½_d._ to be
disposed of to the poor by the Alderman.
10. If a brother is sick whilst the Guild is “holden” he shall have
meat and drink also as well as the one present at the dinner.
11. The number of the brethren were not to exceed 32, that they must be
“of goode name and fame.”
12. If any of the members “fall in stryfe together, ... they shall not
pursue to judicial courte,” but notify it to the Alderman, who shall
try to settle it and “bring them to accord.” If he cannot, “then they
may goo to common law.”
13. If any brother “have anie need of our heres or lighte to any friend
of his dead,” he may have them for the “common profit of the guylde.”
If he take any other, he must pay a pound of wax.
14. Accounts to be passed every year by four auditors.
15. An unworthy member may be expelled by the “more part of the
fraternity,” and any property he holds must be returned.
16. The Guild shall maintain 5 tapers, one of 5 lbs. and four of “five
quarters,” burning in the Church of St. James; one shall burn each year
at the sepulchre--“one year in the church of our Lady, and another year
in the church of St. James.”
17. The fraternity shall sing a Mass on the Purification at one of the
churches, at which each shall offer ¼_d._ for dead members.
18. The Alderman shall find a part of the high days in the Guild hall,
that is, “all manner naperie to the sayde deyce or table longing; and
also all manner stuffe to the firste messe except bread and ale. And
the Dye, the charges in the kechen and the holders all the necessaries
longing to the buttery, pantry and to the said tables in the guylde
hall except bread and ale.”
19. All who hold any “Guylde Cattle” shall come to the Hall on the
Sunday after the Assumption, and the Alderman, Dye and auditors shall
have the roll of stock and the increase entered.
20. The Alderman and Dye “shall receive of two houses in Wellis street
of the gift of Jeffery Glemes for the 2_s._ yerely, keeping the
reparation of four alms-houses joining to them.”
21. Upon any alienation of the lands, etc., that John Smith gave to the
town of Bury, the same shall be done with those which Margaret Odham
gave to the Candlemas Guild, also those belonging to St. Mary’s aulter,
to St. Thomas’ aulter and to the almshouses.
22. According to John Smith’s will, four of the feofees of the property
to be chosen at Candlemas are to give account to the other feofees.
They shall provide for the Dirge on St. Peter’s even at Midsummer and
the Mass next day for J. S. and his wife Anne.
23. Those who have keys of the hutch or of the porch door of Guild are
to bring them in at Candlemas, and they are to be given to those “who
are considered best to keep them.”
In the foregoing chapters I have endeavoured to gather together
from the scattered and frequently minute material which exists some
illustrations of parochial life in mediæval times. The result must
speak for itself; it is, I feel sure, as far as it goes, correct as
to the outline of the picture. Had I not been anxious not to weary
the reader by the very multiplicity and minuteness of the details,
the result might have been perhaps more definite, and the lights
and shades been more effective. As it is, however, my purpose has
been accomplished if I have succeeded in interesting them in this
description of the life led by our ancestors in a mediæval parish--a
life so strangely and entirely different to that which now exists in
the towns and villages of modern England. For “in the Middle Ages,”
says a writer in a late number of _The National Review_, in a passage
already referred to, “the conscious sharing in a world-wide tradition
bound the local to the universal life, and through art and ritual the
minds of the poor were familiarized with facts of the Christian faith.
By our own poor I fear these facts are very dimly realized.”
INDEX
Absolution Day, 177
Adoration of the Cross, 179
Advent, 164
Altar, 46-49;
cælatura, 46;
frontal of, 49;
beam, 51, 134
Ambry, 46
Angelus, 162, 163
Appropriations, 86
Aquæbajularius, 112-114
Arundel, Archbishop, 162, 217
Ash Wednesday, 168-170
Ave bell, 162
_Babe of Nurture_, 248, 249
Banns, 209, 225
Baptism, sacrament of, 188-192;
no fee exacted, 190
Becon, 48
Bede-rolls, 136, 222-225
Bedes, bidding of, 222, 223
Bellman, 119, 120
Benefice of the Blessed Water, 115
Brentano, 255
Bidding prayer, 157
_Boke of Kervynge_, 145
Booth, Mr., 244, 246
Borde, Andrew, 145
Boy-bishop, 165-167
Bracton, 27, 67, 82, 209
Brantyngham, Bishop, 23, 26, 100, 115, 197
Bride gear, 61
Bronescombe, Bishop, 86
Brunton, Bishop, 197
Candlemas Day, 168
Candle-silver, 138
Candlesticks, 50, 51
Cælatura, 46
Cemetery, 66, 67, 68;
consecration of, 68;
trees in, 67
Cess, 125
Chancel, the, 22, 23, 44-46, 54
Chantries, 59, 73, 74, 95, 96, 111, 149, 264, 266
Chantry certificates, 264, 266
Chantry priest, 95, 96, 111, 118, 266
Chapel of ease, 99-101
Chapel of repose, 178
Chaplains, 99-101
Chaucer, 151
Childermas, 165
Choir, 44, 45
Chrism, 196
Chrismatory, 196
Chrism-cloths, 27, 196
Christmas, 165
Church ale, 237-239
Churches, riches of, 70
Church house, 233-237, 239
Churchwardens, 103;
origin of, 103, 104;
election of, 104;
number of, 105;
duties of, 106, 108, 110, 111, 121, 122, 126, 132, 133, 138, 210,
232, 241, 243
Churching of women, 193;
origin of rite, 193;
fee, 193
Clergy, district, 3, 4;
from all classes, 72-76;
their education, 74-78;
dress of, 80, 81;
status of, 81;
qualifications, 83;
hospitality, 84
Collections, 127-130, 240-243
Confession. _See_ Penance
Confirmation, sacrament of, 193-197;
spiritual relationship of god-parents in, 194;
instruction before, 194;
preparation for, 194
Confraternities, 30, 109
Constitutions of Cardinal Otho, 27, 78, 82, 92;
of St. Edmund of Canterbury, 28, 64, 189;
of Archbishop Winchelsea, 53;
of Cardinal Othobono, 80;
of Archbishop Stratford, 82;
of Lambeth, 86;
of Archbishop Courtney, 93;
of Archbishop Boniface, 113, 114;
of Archbishop Peckham, 141, 148, 214-218;
of Bishop Gilbert, 159;
of Province of York, 159;
of Archbishop Chichely, 159;
of Archbishop Thoresby, 159;
of Archbishop Mepham, 180;
of Archbishop Walter Reynold, 199
Corona, 78, 80;
of candles, 57
Corpus Christi day, 185
Councils of Orleans (fourth), 4;
of Mainz, 4;
of Macon (second), 5, 11;
of Rouen, 5;
of Merton, 12;
of York, 217;
of Oxford, 226
Cranmer, Archbishop, 140, 190
Creeping to the Cross, 179
Crucifix, on altar, 50, 54;
_summus_, 54, 57, 58
Curate, 92, 94, 224
“Cyphus pro Infirmis,” 205
De Asserio, Bishop, 88, 91, 95
De Bytton, Bishop, 25
De Salopia, Ralph, Bishop, 162
De Worde, Wynkin, 145
Deacon, 101, 116
_Dives and Pauper_, 11, 12, 32, 50, 57, 58, 140, 161, 174, 179, 209,
210, 247, 249
Dowelling money, 137
Ducange, 56
Durham Halmote Rolls, 244-246;
rites, 182
Easter Day, 181-183;
customs, 183
Easter sepulchre, 177-179
Ecclesiastical institutes, 170
Edyndon, Bishop, 66
Ethelwulf of Wessex, 11
Evensong, 159
Excommunications, 227-230
Extreme unction, sacrament of, 201-207
Farming of tithes, 19
Feast of the Star, 165
Fees, for consecration of altar, 50;
for blessing altar-cloths, 50;
for burial, 130;
for churching, 193;
for marriage, 209;
for quethe-word, 225;
for Mass, 86
FitzRalph, Archbishop, 185
Font, 63, 64;
safe-keeping of, 64, 192;
leave for construction of, 192;
blessing of, 189;
made of stone and kept covered, 192
Fraternities, 253-273
Gabriel bell, 162
_Gawayne and the Green Knight_, 146
Gervase, 51
Gifts in kind, 135
_Golden Legend_, 166
Good Friday, 179
Grace with meals, 247, 248
Grandisson, Bishop, 16, 24, 80, 190, 193, 196, 206
Grosseteste, 220
Guilds, 120, 142, 253;
craft, 254;
religious, 254, 255;
chapels, 59;
hall, 236, 237;
lands, 256;
priests, 264;
statutes, 261, 269-273;
objects, 265;
trusts, 267;
processions, 269;
oaths, 260, 261
Halmote Rolls, Durham, 244-246
Harleian charters, 82
Hingeston-Randolph, Prebendary, 28, 219
Hobhouse, Bishop, 7, 21, 106, 134, 213, 225, 258
Hock-tyde, or hock-days, 241, 242
Holy Eucharist, sacrament of, 200, 201;
obligatory once a year, 200;
under form of bread, 201;
use of wine and water from chalice, 201
Holy Innocents’ Day, 165
Holy loaf, 139, 157
Holy Saturday, 64, 180, 181, 189;
superstition concerning, 189, 190
Holy-water bearer, 112-114
Holy water, blessing of, 155;
stoup for, 65
Impropriation of tithes, 15-18
Indulgences, 226, 227
Innocent I., Pope, 3
Instructions, familiar, by clergy, 214
Interrogations, seven, 206
Jessopp, Dr., 69, 236, 239, 262
Jesu Mass, 142
John XXII., Pope, 162
Judas candle, 175
Judas of the Paschal, 181
_Jus pauperum_, 85
Langham, Simon, Bishop of Ely (after, Archbishop), 45, 93, 150, 160,
188, 216
Langland, 171, 184
Langton, Walter, Bishop, 226
Latimer, Bishop, 75
Lent, 170, 171
Lenten veil, 170, 171
_Liber Festivalis_, 171, 176
Lollards, 216
Lord’s Bread, the, 8
Lyndwood, 8, 10, 19, 23, 64, 71, 87, 98, 113, 114, 141, 159, 180, 194,
204
Manuals, 220
Marriage, 207;
at the church door, 209;
form, 209;
ornaments, 209, 210;
some provided by parish, 210
Mass, daily, 140, 144, 146
Mass, High, 155
Matins, 152-154;
books, 152
Matrimony, sacrament of, 207-210
Maundy, the, 176, 177
Maundy Thursday, 176, 177
Mepham, Simon, Archbishop, 180
Minstrels, 246
Miracle plays, 248-252
More, Sir Thomas, 153, 171, 177
Morrow Mass, 142, 143
Myrc, John, 19, 68, 148, 153, 192, 193, 196, 199, 205, 222
Nave, 45
Nevill, Archbishop, 217
Obits, 96, 97, 266, 267, 268
Oblations, 10, 87
Old Symon, 76
Orders, reception of, 76
Otho, Cardinal, 81, 91
Othobono, Cardinal, Legate, 23, 188
Palm Sunday, 171-174
Palms, 172
Parish, derivation of word, 2;
clergy, 3;
system, 4, 6, 7;
meaning of word, 4, 5, 21;
revenues, 9;
repairs nave, 28;
duties, 33;
expenses, 34-43;
provides frontal of altar, 49;
management, 102;
officials, 103-123;
church, 107;
land, 235;
provides marriage ornaments, 210;
meetings, 234-236;
house, 233-237, 239
Parson, the, 43, 71, 82, 83
Paschal candle, 181;
money, 138
Pax, the, 34
Peacock, Mr., 238, 239
Peckham, Archbishop, 8, 32, 114, 167, 193, 203, 215
Penance, sacrament of, 197-200;
obligatory once a year, 197;
instructions, 198, 199;
manner of confessing women, 199;
and men, 200
Penances, public, 231, 232
Pentecostal, 137
Peter’s pence, 42, 138
Pew-rents, 135
Piscina, 51, 52
Pollock and Maitland’s _History of English Law_, 81, 103, 104
Porch, 65
Processions, 156, 157, 172-174, 184, 185
Proofs of age, 189
_Prymer_ of 1538, 145, 152
Pulpit, 211, 212;
publication of laws from, 227;
of notices, 227;
of excommunications, 227-230;
of citations, 230
Pyx, the, 48, 49, 101
Quethe-word, the, 225
Quevil, Peter, Bishop, 13, 23, 25, 66, 75, 87, 109, 115, 129, 149,
192, 207
Rates, voluntary, 42, 124, 125
Rector, the, 71, 82;
qualifications, 83
Rectory house, 88, 89
Red Cross, 171
Registers, Bishop Grandisson’s, 196, 229;
Bishop Brantyngham’s, 100, 197;
Bishop Bronescombe’s, 229
Reichel, Rev. Oswald, 1, 3, 4, 6
_Rites of Durham_, 182
Robert of Gloucester, 146
Rock, Dr., 158, 166, 172
Rogations, 184
Rood, 54;
screen, 54, 56;
light, 57;
loft, 56, 57
Rotherham, Archbishop, 74
Rowell, 57
Sacramental system, 187
Sanctus bell, 147
_Sarum Manuale_, 20
Schaft, 109, 259
_Schoole of Virtue_, 75
Schoolmaster, 118
Scott Robertson, Canon, 51
Screen, 44
Scrope, Archbishop, 238
Sedilia, 51
Sermons, 211-222;
distinguished from instructions, 213
Servile work, 159-161
Sexton, 118
Sheer Thursday, 176
Sheffield, William, Dean of York, 9
Shrovetide, 168-170
Shryving-stool, 200
Simons, Canon, 145, 146
Smoke-farthing, 137, 138
Stafford, Bishop, 28, 100
Stapledon, Bishop, 16, 24, 90, 95, 219
Statute of Labourers, 106
Stipendiary priest, 98
Stoup, 65
Stubbs, Bishop, 86
Stratford, Archbishop, 86
Sunday, observance of, 159-161
Synods of Exeter, 109, 115, 137, 192, 197, 201, 207;
of Ely, 93, 150, 188, 216;
of Oxford, 194, 214, 215
Tenant-right, 246
Tenebræ, 175
Theodore, Archbishop, 156
Thoresby, Archbishop, 215
Thorold Rogers, 72, 256, 265, 266
Thurible, 33
Tithes, 10-14, 16-18
Tonsure, 78, 80
Toulmin Smith, Mr., 253, 256, 261, 266
Towneley mysteries, 251
Universities, education of clergy at, 76, 77
_Valor Ecclesiasticus_, 14, 87, 92, 118
Vespers, 159
Viaticum, 206
Vicar, duties and position of, 90, 91;
institution of, 91;
perpetual, 92;
general, 92
Visitations, 218-220
Visitation of the sick, 201-205
Wickham Legg, Dr., 116
Winchelsey, Archbishop, 33, 46
Windows, 58, 59
Wives’ dance, 243
Woodlock, Bishop, 26, 194
_Young Children’s Book_, 145
PRINTED BY
WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED,
LONDON AND BECCLES.
* * * * *
Transcriber’s note
Minor punctuation errors have been changed without notice. Spelling of
names have been standardized. Otherwise, spelling has been retained as
originally published.
Illustrations tags have been moved so they do not break up the
paragraphs.
Page xiv: Entries for CLERICAL LIFE were put in alphabetical order.
Page number references in the index are as published in the original
publication and have not been checked for accuracy in this eBook.
The following printer error has been changed:
Page 46: “or _magus altare_” “or _majus altare_”
Page 46: “renew this _cœlatura_” “renew this _cælatura_”
Page 85: “_eleemosyæ_, the” “_eleemosynæ_, the”
Page 172: “as Aelfric tells us” “as Ælfric tells us”
Page 219: “at at St. Mary Church” “at St. Mary Church”
Page 230: “denunciation, an incicident” “denunciation, an incident”
Page 261: “London. Théy begin” “London. They begin”
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Parish life in mediæval England" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.