THE INCOME OF THE CLERGY.
The means provided for the support of the clergy were various at various
periods, consisting sometimes merely of voluntary donations on the part
of the people, sometimes of grants of lands, or settled endowments, and
sometimes of fixed charges upon persons and property, recognized by the
state and levied under its authority: and after the secure establishment
of a Christian church in Britain, it is probable that all these several
sources of income were combined to supply its ministers with a decent
maintenance, if not even an easy competence. The grant of lands whereon
to erect a church or a monastery was generally calculated also to
furnish arable and pasture for the support of its inmates: for the
earliest clergy were in fact cœnobites, and lived in common, even if
they were not monks, and subject to the Benedictine or some other Rule.
It is not at all probable that the heathen priesthood should have been
without an adequate provision, whether in land or the free oblations of
the people, and very likely that their Christian successors profited by
the custom. As the piety or superstition of the masses increased the
landed possessions of the clergy, these not only could depend upon the
produce of their estates, but upon the rents in kind, in money or in
service, which they received from tenants or poor dependents. And from
early periods, either custom or positive law had established a right to
claim certain contributions at fixed periods of the year, or on
particular occasions; such were tithes of fruits of the earth, and young
of cattle; cyricsceat or first-fruits of seed, light-money, plough-alms,
and sáwlsceat or mortuary fees. The numberless grants of lands recorded
in the Codex Diplomaticus in favour of the clergy, dispense with the
necessity of entering at any length upon this head; but some more
detailed examination of the other church-dues is desirable, inasmuch as
they have been in some degree misunderstood by several writers who have
heretofore treated of them. In truth, it was comparatively difficult to
deal with these subjects, till the publication of all the Anglosaxon
laws and a very large body of the charters so greatly increased the
number of data upon which alone sound conclusions could be formed.
The subject of tithe is surrounded with difficulty, not only from the
obscurity which belongs to its history, but still more from the nature
of the discussions to which it has given rise. That from periods so
early as to transcend historical record the clergy should have been
permitted universally to claim a tenth of all increase, does indeed seem
so startling a proposition, that we are little surprised at its having
met with angry opposition. It does not seem consonant to the general
experience of man that in all nations precisely the same mode should be
adopted of supporting any class of men; nor is it natural or easy to
believe that a missionary body, in constant danger of finding all their
efforts vain, should prevail at once to establish so serious a claim
against the income of their converts.
Still there are various circumstances which tend to explain this process
and show how a general consent upon this subject did gradually prevail.
From the first moment when the clergy appear as a separate class from
the whole body of the faithful, they appear as a body formed upon the
plan and guided by the maxims of the Jewish hierarchy. While the church
was literally performing the command of the Saviour,—when those who had
anything, sold all they had and gave it to the poor, through the hands
of the Apostles,—there was no particular necessity to define very
closely the functions or the remuneration of the ministers; these gave
their services as others did their wealth, as an acceptable sacrifice to
the Giver of all good things. But when the number of the congregations
increased, when compromises were made, and more complicated duties were
imposed upon the ministers of the church, it was only reasonable that
some arrangement should be made for their support, and some rule imposed
for their direction. It was not too much to require that they should
devote their whole time and talents to the service of the congregation,
and that these in turn should relieve them from the necessity of daily
labour for subsistence. When the duty of teaching, as well as visiting
the sick, distributing the alms of the faithful, and providing for the
due celebration of the religious rites, principally devolved upon them,
it would have been as impolitic as unjust to have condemned them to
uncertainty or anxiety as to their daily bread. At a very early period
the voluntary oblations of the faithful were duly apportioned, and a
part devoted to the support of the clergy. But no one, I imagine, will
consider this to be a perfectly satisfactory mode of providing for the
ministers of the church: its inconveniences are daily manifested in our
own time, and would now probably not be submitted to at all, had
opposition not lent a dignity to the principle, and did the case present
any but the actual alternative. It nevertheless seems that for nearly
four hundred years this was the only mode of providing not only for the
maintenance of the clergy, but for the acts of charity which the
Christian congregations considered their especial duty[973]; although
perhaps here and there the wealthier or more pious communicants might
have charged their estates with settled payments at fixed times; or the
liberality of individuals might have presented estates to the church of
particular districts; or some imperfect system of funding might have
been adopted by the managers to equalise the otherwise irregular income
of various years.
-----
Footnote 973:
“Till toward the end of the first four hundred [years] no payment of
them [_i. e._ tithes] can be proved to have been in use. Some
_opinion_ is of their being due, and _constitutions_ also, but such as
are of no credit. For the first, ’tis best declared by showing the
course of the church-maintenance in that time. So liberal in the
beginning of Christianity was the devotion of the believers, that
their bounty to the evangelical priesthood far exceeded what the tenth
could have been. For if you look to the first of the Apostles’ times,
then the unity of heart among them about Jerusalem, was such that all
was in common and none wanted, ‘and as many as were possessors of
lands or houses, sold them and brought the price of the things that
were sold, and laid it down at the Apostles’ feet, and it was
distributed unto every man, according as he had need[a].’And the whole
church, both lay and clergy, then lived in common as the monks did
afterward about the end of the first four hundred years as St.
Chrysostome notes[b] οὕτως, says he, οἱ ἐν τοῖς μοναστηρίοις ζῶσι νῦν
ὥσπερ τότε οἱ πιστοὶ, that is, ‘So they live now in monasteries as
then the believers lived.’ But this kind of having all things in
common scarce at all continued. For we see not long after in the
church of Antiochia (where Christianity was first of all by that name
professed) every one of the disciples had a special ability or estate
of his own[c]. So in Galatia and in Corinth where St. Paul ordained
that weekly offerings for the Saints should be given by every man as
he had thrived in his estate[d]. By example of these, the course of
monthly offerings succeeded in the next ages. These monthly offerings
given by devout and able Christians, the bishops or officers appointed
in the church received[e]; and carefully and charitably disposed them
on Christian worship, the maintenance of the clergy, feeding,
clothing, and burying their poor brethren, widows, orphans, persons
tyrannically condemned to the mines, to prison, or punished by
deportation into isles. They were called _Stipes_ (which is a word
borrowed from the use of the heathens in their collections made for
their temples and deities), neither were they exacted by canon or
otherwise, but arbitrarily given; as by testimony of most learned
Tertullian[f], that lived about CC years after Christ, is apparent:
‘Neque pretio (are his words) ulla res Dei constat. Etiam si quod
arcae genus est, non de oneraria summa quasi redemptae religionis
congregatur, modicam unusquisque Stipem, menstruâ die, vel cum velit,
et si modo velit, et si modo possit, apponit. Nam nemo compellitur,
sed sponte confert. Haec quasi deposita pietatis sunt.’ And then he
shewes the employment of them in those charitable uses. Some authority
is[g], that about this time lands began also to be given to the
church. If they were so, out of the profits of them, and this kind of
offerings, was made a treasure; and out of that, which was increased
so monthly, was a monthly pay given to the priests and ministers of
the Gospel (as a salarie for their service), and that either by the
hand or care of the bishop, or of some elders appointed as Oeconomi or
Wardens. These monthly pays they called Mensurnae divisiones, as you
may see in St. Cyprian[h], who wrote, being bishop of Carthage, about
the year CCL, and, speaking familiarly of this use, calls the brethren
that cast in their monthly offerings, _fratres sportulantes_,
understanding the offerings under the word Sportulae, which at first
in Rome denoted a kind of running banquets distributed at great men’s
houses to such as visited for salutation, which being ofttimes also
given in money, the word came at length to signify both those
salaries, wages or fees which either judges[i] or ministers of courts
of justice received as due to their places, as also to denote the
oblations given to make a treasure for the salaries and maintenance of
the ministers of the church in this primitive age, and to this purpose
was it also used in later times[j]. But because that passage of St.
Cyprian, where he uses this phrase, well shows also the course of the
maintenance of the church in his time, take it here transcribed: but
first know the drift of his Epistle to be a reprehension of Geminius
Faustinus a priest his being troubled with the care of a wardship,
whereas such as take that dignity upon them, should, he says, be free
from all secular troubles like the Levites, who were provided for in
tithes. ‘Ut qui (as he writes[k]) operationibus divinis insistebant,
in nulla re avocarentur, nec cogitare aut agere saecularia
cogerentur.’ And then he adds: ‘Quae nunc ratio et forma in Clero
tenetur, ut qui in ecclesia Domini ad ordinationem clericalem
promoventur, nullo modo ab administratione divina avocentur, sed in
honore sportulantium fratrum, tanquam Decimas ex fructibus
accipientes, ab Altari et Sacrificiis non recedant, et die ac nocte
coelestibus rebus et spiritualibus serviant;’ which plainly agrees
with that course of monthly pay, made out of the oblations brought
into the Treasury; which kind of means he compares to that of the
Levites, as being proportionable. But hence also ’tis manifest, that
no payment of tithes was in St. Cyprian’s time in use, although some,
too rashly, from this very place would infer so much, those words
_tanquam Decimas accipientes_ (which continues the comparing of
ministers of the Gospel with the Levites) plainly exclude them. And
elsewhere also the same Father, finding fault with a coldness of
devotion that then possest many, in regard of what was in use in the
Apostles’ times, and seeing that the Oblations given were less than
usually before, expresses[l] their neglect to the church with, ‘ac
nunc de patrimonio nec Decimas damus:’ whence, as you may gather, that
no usual payment was of them, so withall observe in his expression,
that the liberality formerly used had been such, that, in respect
thereof, Tenths were but a small part: understand it as if he had
said, ‘but now we give not so much as any part worth speaking of.’
Neither for aught appears in old monuments of credit, till near the
end of this first four hundred years, was any payment to the Church of
any tenth part, as a Tenth, at all in use.” Selden on Tithes, cap. iv.
p. 35 _seq._.
Footnote a:
Acts iv. 34.
Footnote b:
Hom. 11. in Acta.
Footnote c:
Acts xi. 29.
Footnote d:
1 Cor. xvi. 2. Ockam, in Oper. xc dierum, cap. 107.
Footnote e:
Synod. Gangr. can. lxvi.
Footnote f:
Apologetic. cap. 39, 42.
Footnote g:
Urban, i. in Epist. c. 12, q. 1, c. 16, i. Sed et vide Euseb. Eccles.
Hist. lib. 9. cap. 9. Edict. Maximin. et lib. 10. cap. 5. Edict.
Constant. et in lib. 2. de vita Constantini, cap. 39.
Footnote h:
Cyprian, Epist. 27, 34: et vide Epist. 36, editione Pammeliana.
Footnote i:
Papinian. de Decurion. L 6. § 1. et C. _tit._ de Sportulis. Et vid.
Glossar. Græc. iuris in Σπορτουλα.
Footnote j:
Concil. Chalced. A.D. 451. in libell. Samuelis et al. contra Iban. et
videsis tom. 3. Concil. fol. 231. cap. 31. Edit. Binii penultima.
Footnote k:
Epist. 266. ed. Pammel.
Footnote l:
De Unitate Ecclesiae, § 23.
-----
The growing habit of looking upon the clergy as the successors and
representatives of the Levites under the Old Law, may very likely have
given the impulse to that claim which they set up to the payment of
tithes by the laity. But it is also probable that in course of time
tithes had actually been given to them among other oblations, and had so
helped to strengthen the application of the Levitical Law by an apparent
legal prescription. There is not the least reason to doubt that payments
of a tenth had been in very common use before the introduction of
Christianity, and among people who have a decimal system of notation, a
tenth is not an unlikely portion to be claimed as a royalty, a
recognitory service, or a rent. The emperors had royalties of a tenth in
mines: the landlords very frequently reserved a tenth in lands which
they put out on usufructuary tenure. These rents and royalties, like
other property, had been granted to the church. Again the piety of the
laity had occasionally remitted the tenths due upon the lands in the
holding of the clergy, which was in fact equivalent to a grant of the
tithe[974]. And lastly tithe being paid on some estates to the clergy as
landlords, there was a useful analogy, and colourable claim of right:
and thus sufficient authority was found in custom itself to corroborate
pretensions set up on grounds which could not be very satisfactorily or
safely demurred to, in the fourth and fifth centuries.
-----
Footnote 974:
One of the clearest examples that occur to me at present is from a
capitulary of the Merwingian Chlotachari in 560. “Agraria, pascuaria,
vel decimas porcorum, aecclesiae, pro fidei nostrae devotione,
concedimus, ita ut actor aut decimator in rebus aecclesiae nullus
accedat: aecclesiae vel clericis nullam requirant agentes publici
functionem qui avi vel genitoris aut germani nostri immunitatem
meruerunt.” Pertz, iii. 3. This is clearly a remission of tithe due to
the king from lands held by the clergy, and bears some resemblance to
Æðelwulf’s celebrated release.
-----
But there is not the slightest proof that tithe of increase was demanded
as of right even in the fifth century, in all the churches; although a
growing tendency in that direction may be detected in the African and
the Western establishments. Nor does any general council exist
containing any regulation on the subject[975], till far later periods.
But in 567 the clergy at the synod of Tours for the first time
positively called upon the faithful to pay tithes[976], and eighteen
years later at the Council of Macon, the command was enforced, as a
return to a just and goodly custom which had fallen into desuetude, but
which had the sanction of “the divine law, specially taking care of the
interests of priests and ministers of churches.” The daringly false
assertions by which this usurpation was attempted to be justified are
recorded in the annexed note, if indeed the acts of this council are
genuine[977]: I have only to add that they were subscribed by forty-six
bishops, and the representatives of twenty more,—making a total of
sixty-six prelates, a number quite sufficient in the year 585 to gain
currency for any fabrication however impudent. The clergy however still
thundered in vain; nor was it till 779 that they succeeded in getting
legislative and state authority for their claim through the political
interests of the Frankish princes. The Capitulary of that year enacts
that every one shall give tithes, and that these shall be distributed by
the direction of the bishop[978].
-----
Footnote 975:
The earliest is the Council of Lateran, held by Calixtus II. in 1123.
The Council of Lateran, A.D. 1179, commanded that those who at the
peril of their souls retained property in tithes, should not, under
any pretence, transfer it to lay hands. But no general Council assumes
the payment of tithes to be due of common right to the parochial
Rector, before the Council of Lateran held by Innocent III. in 1215.
Footnote 976:
Epist. Episc. Prov. Turon. ad plebem Missa; Labbe. v. 868. Eichhorn,
§186. vol. i. 779 _seq._
Footnote 977:
Conc. Matiscon. 585. can. 5. “Omnes igitur reliquas fidei causas, quas
temporis longitudine cognovimus deterioratas fuisse, oportet nos ad
statum pristinum revocare, ne nobis simus adversarii, dum ea quae
cognoscimus ad nostri ordinis qualitatem pertinere, aut non
corrigimus, aut, quod nefas est, silentio praeterimus. Leges itaque
divinae, consulentes sacerdotibus ac ministris aecclesiarum, pro
haereditatis portione omni populo praeceperunt decimas fructuum suorum
locis sacris praestare, ut nullo labore impediti, horis legitimis
spiritualibus possent vacare ministeriis. Quas leges Christianorum
congeries longis temporibus custodivit intemeratas; nunc autem
paulatim praevaricatores legum poene Christiani omnes ostenduntur, dum
ea quae divinitus sancita sunt, adimplere negligunt. Unde statuimus et
decernimus, ut mos antiquus a fidelibus reparetur, et decimas
aecclesiasticis famulantibus caeremoniis populus omnis inferat, quas
sacerdotes aut in pauperum usum, aut in captivorum redemptionem
praerogantes, suis orationibus pacem populo et salutem impetrent. Si
quis autem contumax nostris statutis saluberrimis fuerit, a membris
aecclesiae omni tempore separetur.” It must be confessed that Selden
has thrown very great doubts upon the authenticity of this canon of
the Council of Macon, and that it is of very questionable authority.
See his History of Tithes, cap. 5. p. 65. It is hardly consistent with
what Agobard of Lyons, who shortly after was bishop of the see itself
in which Macon lies, declares: “Iam vero de donandis rebus et
ordinandis aecclesiis nihil unquam in Synodis constitutum est, nihil a
sanctis patribus publice praedicatum. Nulla enim compulit necessitas,
fervente ubique religiosa devotione, et amore illustrandi aecclesias
ultro aestuante,” etc. Agob. Lugdun. de Dispensatione, etc. p. 276.
(Ed. Masson. Parisiis.) But as Eichhorn, who has deeply investigated
this subject, appears to differ here from Selden, I have cited this
Council on his responsibility, and with the more readiness, that it
rather opposes than confirms my own opinion.
Footnote 978:
“De decimis, ut unusquisque decimam donet, atque per iussionem
pontificis dispensentur.” Capit. 779, cap. 7. Pertz, iii.
-----
Ten years after the council of Macon had thus boldly announced its views
with regard to tithe, Augustine set out for England.
The question as to the origin of tithes in England, as to its date, and
the authority on which the impost rested, has been much discussed, but
not altogether satisfactorily. Nevertheless when divested of the
extraneous difficulties with which polemical zeal, and selfish
class-interests have overwhelmed it, it does not seem incapable of a
reasonable solution. It is well known that the earliest legislative
enactment on the subject in the Anglosaxon laws is that of Æðelstán,
bearing date in the first quarter of the tenth century; and that nearly
every subsequent king recognized the right of the clergy to tithe, and
made regulations either for the levying or the distribution of it[979].
But although this is the case, I entertain no doubt whatever that the
payment of tithe was become very general in England at an earlier
period. It is recognised in the articles of the treaty of peace between
Eádweard the elder and Guðorm, in A.D. 900 or 901, in such a way as to
assume its being a well-known and established due to the Church[980],
even though no legislative enactment on the subject can be shown in the
Codes of Ælfred, Ini or the Kentish kings[981]. The well-known tradition
of Æðelwulf’s granting tithe, throughout at least his kingdom of Wessex,
carries it back still half a century. But even this falls short of the
antiquity which we must assume for the custom, if we believe in the
genuineness of the ancient Poenitentials and Confessionals. In the
eighth century Theodore determines, in a work especially intended for
the instruction of the clergy, “Tributum aecclesiae sit, sicut est
consuetudo provinciae, id est, ne tantum pauperes in decimis, aut in
aliquibus rebus vim patiantur. Decimas non est legitimum dare, nisi
pauperibus et peregrinis[982].”
-----
Footnote 979:
See Appendix to this volume.
Footnote 980:
“If any one withhold tithes, let him pay lahslít among the Danes, wíte
among the English.” Eád. Gúð. §6. Thorpe, i. 170.
Footnote 981:
Brompton says that Offa granted it, as far as Mercia was concerned, p.
772. Certainly, in general, Brompton’s authority is not very great;
but I think that in this case he has probability on his side, if we
restrict the grant to Offa’s demesne lands, or to a release of a tenth
of the dues payable to the king on Folcland. A general enactment,
comprising the whole kingdom, would scarcely have been omitted in any
subsequent collection of laws. The law of Offa is indeed lost, but
some of its provisions probably survive in the legislation of later
kings. See Ælfr. Proem. Thorpe, i. 58. The absence of all mention of
tithe by Ælfred is not conclusive: he takes just as little notice of
cyricsceat, leohtsceat, sáwlsceat, and other payments which were
unquestionably claimed by the church. Eádweard’s treaty with Gúðorm,
though it does not define the parties from whom tithe was demandable,
treats subtraction of it as an offence punishable at law.
Footnote 982:
Capitula et Fragm. Theod. Thorpe, ii. 65.
-----
The Excerptions of Archbishop Ecgberht[983] contain a prohibition
against subtracting tithes from churches of old foundation, on pretence
of giving them to new oratories. And further, the following exhortation
respecting this payment[984]: “In lege Domini scriptum est: ‘Decimas et
primitias non tardabis offerre.’ Et in Levitico: ‘Omnes decimae terrae,
sive de frugibus, sive de pomis arborum, Domini sunt; boves, et oves, et
caprae, quae sub pastoris virga transeunt, quicquid decimum venerit,
sanctificabitur Domino.’ Non eligetur nec bonum nec malum, nec alterum
commutabitur. Augustinus dicit: Decimae igitur tributae sunt
aecclesiarum et egentium animarum. O homo, inde Dominus decimas expetit,
unde vivis. De militia, de negotio, de artificio redde decimas; non enim
eget Dominus noster, non proemia postulat, sed honorem.” The same
ancient authority thus also impresses upon priests the duty of
collecting and distributing the tithe[985]:—“Ut unusquisque sacerdos
cunctos sibi pertinentes erudiat, ut sciant qualiter decimas totius
facultatis aecclesiis divinis debite offerant. Ut ipsi sacerdotes a
populis suscipiant decimas, et nomina eorum quicumque dederint scripta
habeant, et secundum auctoritatem canonicam coram [Deum] timentibus
dividant; et ad ornamentum aecclesiae primam eligant partem; secundam
autem, ad usum pauperum atque peregrinorum, per eorum manus
misericorditer cum omni humilitate dispensent; tertiam vero sibimetipsis
sacerdotes reservent[986].”
-----
Footnote 983:
Excerpt. Ecgberhti, No. 24. Thorpe, ii. 100.
Footnote 984:
Excerpt. Ecgberhti, Nos. 101, 102. Thorpe, ii. 111, 112.
Footnote 985:
Excerpt. Ecgberhti, Nos. 4, 5. Thorpe, ii. 98.
Footnote 986:
The custom of the Romish church, as is well known, divided every
oblation, or gain that accrued to the church from the contributions of
the faithful, into four parts,—one for the bishop, one for the poor,
one for the clergy, and one for the repairs of the fabric. Othlon, who
wrote the Life of St. Boniface in the twelfth century, thus appeals to
the universal custom of the church: “Quando quidem iuxta sanctorum
canonum decreta decimas in quatuor portiones dividentes, unam, sibi
[i. e. the bishops], alteram clericis, tertiam pauperibus, quartam
restaurandis aecclesiis tradiderunt? Numquid avaritiae suae tantummodo
consulentes, in distributione decimarum obliti sunt pauperum,
restaurationisque aecclesiarum, sicut modo, pro dolor! cernimus agi?
Canones enim sancti, ex quorum auctoritate exiguntur decimae, non
solum decimas dari, sed etiam inter varios aecclesiae usus distribui;
ut in urbibus quibuslibet et vicis Xenodochia habeantur, ubi pauperes
et peregrini alantur. Sed tam sanctum et tam necessarium praeceptum in
pluribus locis non solum minime curatur, sed etiam poene ignoratur.
Nam solummodo illud legitur, quod epicopis decimae sint tribuendae;
quid vero exinde agendum sit, vel si quidquam aliud curandum sit circa
monasteria, tam a clericis—miserabile dictu—quam a laicis destructa,
citraque iudicia religionis Christianae subversa, oblivioni seu
ignorantiae commendatur.” Pertz, ii. 358. In the commencement of the
seventh century, Gregory, in his rules for the government of the
newly-planted English church, directed Augustine to make not four but
three portions, inasmuch as he being a monk could have no separate
share of his own. He says: “Mos autem sedis apostolicae est ordinatis
episcopis praecepta tradere, ut in omni stipendio, quod accedit,
quatuor debeant fieri portiones: una videlicet episcopo et familiae
propter hospitalitatem atque susceptionem, alia clero, tertia
pauperibus, quarta aecclesiis reparandis. Sed quia tua fraternitas
monasterii regulis erudita, seorsum fieri non debet a clericis suis in
aecclesia Anglorum quae, auctore Deo, nuper adhuc ad fidem adducta
est, hanc debet conversationem instituere, quae initio nascentis
aecclesiae fuit patribus nostris; in quibus nullus eorum ex his, quae
possidebant, aliquid suum esse dicebat, sed erant eis omnia communia.”
Beda, H. E. i. 27. The original canon is in Gratian. Caus. 12. q. ii.
c. 30. Ed. Pithæi. fol. Paris, 1687, i. 240. Hence the directions of
the Anglosaxon prelates, and the regulation of Æðelred, as to a
threefold division.
-----
When we consider the growing tendency in the clergy to make payment of
tithe compulsory, the repeated exhortations of provincial synods to that
effect, and the universal ignorance of the people, we shall have little
difficulty in acknowledging that the English prelates laid a good
foundation for the custom of tithing, long before they succeeded in
obtaining any legal right from the State. In the course of three
centuries which preceded Eádweard’s reign they had ample time and
opportunity to threaten or cajole a simple-minded race into the belief
that they had a right to impose the levitical obligations upon them: in
the seventh century Boniface testifies to the payment of tithe in
England, nearly a century before the state enacted it in Germany: about
the same period Cædwealha of Wessex, though yet nominally a pagan,
tithed his spoils taken in war; and I have little doubt that at least
prædial tithe was almost universally levied long before the Witena gemót
made it a legal charge, though I cannot concur with Phillips in
believing that it was so decreed by Offa, or confirmed by Æðelwulf[987],
for the whole kingdoms of Mercia and Wessex.
-----
Footnote 987:
Angelsäch. Recht. p. 251. He appeals only to Brompton, whose authority
is by no means conclusive.
-----
We will now return to Æðelwulf’s so-called grant, in which many of our
lawyers and historians have been content to see the legal origin of
tithing in this country[988]; but which I must confess appears to me to
have nothing to do with tithing whatever, in the legal sense of the
word. The reports of the later chroniclers need not be taken into
account; we may confine ourselves to the early and trustworthy sources,
whose assertions we are quite as likely to make proper use of as the
compilers of the fourteenth century.
-----
Footnote 988:
This is Selden’s view, and Hume’s, and has been generally followed.
-----
Under date of the year 855, the Saxon Chronicle says. “This same year,
Æðelwulf booked the tenth part of his land throughout his realm, for
God’s glory and his own salvation.” Asser, who was no question well
acquainted with the traditions of Æðelwulf’s house, varies the
statement: “Eodem anno Æðhelwulfus praefatus venerabilis rex decimam
totius regni sui partem ab omni regali servitio et tributo liberavit, in
sempiternoque graphio in cruce Christi, pro redemptione animae suae et
antecessorum suorum, uni et trino Deo immolavit[989].” In this he is
followed verbatim by Florence of Worcester. Æðelweard, a direct
descendant of Æðelwulf, thus records the grant[990]: “In eodem anno
decumavit Æðulf rex de omni possessione sua in partem Domini, et in
universo regimine principatus sui sic constituit.”
-----
Footnote 989:
_In anno_ 855.
Footnote 990:
Chronic. lib. iii.
-----
Simeon has:—“Quo tempore rex Ethelwulfus rex decimavit totum regni sui
imperium, pro redemptione animae suae et antecessorum suorum.”
Huntingdon:—“Æðelwulfus decimo nono anno regni sui totam terram suam ad
opus aecclesiarum decumavit, propter amorem Dei et redemptionem sui.”
Roger of Wendover and Matthew Paris, upon the authority of Æðelwulf’s
charter of 854, say:—“Eodem anno rex magnificus Athelwulfus decimam
regni sui partem Deo et Beatae Mariae et omnibus sanctis contulit,
liberam ab omnibus servitiis saecularibus exactionibus et tributis.” And
again in 857, speaking of Æðelwulf’s will:—“Pro utilitate animae suae et
salute, per omne regnum suum semper in decem hidis vel mansionibus
pauperem unum indigenam, vel peregrinum cibo, potu et operimento,
successoribus suis usque in finem saeculi post se pascere praecepit, ita
tamen ut si terra illa pecoribus abundaret et ab hominibus coleretur.”
Malmesbury, who calls the charter of 854 “scriptum libertatis
aecclesiarum quod toti concessit Angliae,” thus describes its
effect:—“Ethelwulfus ... decimam omnium hidarum infra regnum suum
Christi famulis concessit, liberam ab omnibus functionibus, absolutam ab
omnibus inquietudinibus.” And in 857, with reference to Æðelwulfs
will:—“Semperque ad finem saeculi in omni suae haereditatis decima hida
pauperem vestiri et cibari praecepit.”
These passages obviously relate to two several transactions, one which
took place in the year 854, before Æðelwulf’s visit to Rome, the second
in the year 857, after his return to England: and the Codex Diplomaticus
contains a series of documents referring to them[991]. A portion of
these fall under the description of Malmesbury, viz. that of “scriptum
libertatis aecclesiarum.” and as he cites one of them himself by that
title, it is certain that these are what he intends. Now this document,
after the usual proem, recites that Æðelwulf with the consent of his
witan, not only gave the tenth part of the lands throughout his realm to
holy churches, but granted to his ministers, appointed throughout the
same, to have in perpetual freedom, so that his donation might remain
for ever free from all royal and secular burthens: in consideration of
which the bishops agreed to a special service weekly for the king and
his nobles[992], every Saturday.
-----
Footnote 991:
Cod. Dipl. Nos. 270, 271, 275, 276, 1048, 1050, 1051, 1052, 1053,
1054, 1057.
Footnote 992:
The actual words are these:—“Ut decimam partem terrarum per regnum
nostrum, non solum sanctis aecclesiis darem verumetiam et ministris
nostris in eodem constitutis, in perpetuam libertatem habere
concessimus, ita ut talis donatio fixa incommutabilisque permaneat ab
omni regali servitio et omnium saecularium absoluta servitute.” These
are the expressions of Nos. 270, 271, 1050, 1054; which are
respectively dated at Wilton on the 22nd of April, 854, and convey
grants of separate lands to the thane Wigferð, to Malmesbury church,
to Glastonbury, and to the thane Hunsige, as appears by the statements
in the body of the charters, as well as by the endorsements, which are
to this effect:—No. 270. “Ista est libertas quam Æðelwulf rex suo
ministro Wiferðe in perpetuam haereditatem habere concessit, unum
cassatum in loco qui dicitur Heregearding hiwisc:” _Endorsed_, “Ðis
seondan æs landes bêc ðe Æðelwulf cyning Wiferðe his þegne salde.”
-----
Another class, and probably the most genuine, comprises the numbers 275
and 1048; in these documents, which are also grants of immunity to the
clergy and to laics, the granting words are as follows:—“Quamobrem ego
Æðelwulfus rex Occidentalium Saxonum cum consilio episcoporum et
principum meorum, consilium salubre atque uniforme remedium affirmavi;
ut aliquam portionem terrarum haereditariam, antea possidentibus
gradibus omnibus,—sive famulis et famulabus Dei Deo servientibus, sive
laicis,—semper decimam mansionem, ubi minimum sit, tum decimam
partem,—in libertatem perpetuam perdonare diiudicavi; ut sit tuta et
munita ab omnibus saecularibus servitutibus, fiscis regalibus, tributis
maioribus et minoribus, sive taxationibus quae nos dicimus Wíterǽden;
sitque libera omnium rerum, pro remissione animarum et peccatorum
nostrorum, Deo soli ad serviendum, sine expeditione, et pontis
instructione et arcis munitione, ut eo diligentius pro nobis ad Deum
preces sine cessatione fundant, quo eorum servitutem saecularem in
aliqua parte levigamus.” In consideration of this alleviation the
grateful clergy were to perform on the Wednesday in every week the same
services as the first class of documents stipulates for the Saturday. It
is to be observed that the two documents of this particular class,
though the authority for them is of the lowest description, and the
dates are altogether suspicious, seem to be of a much more genuine
character as to the grant itself than the first class: there is a
certain satisfactory accuracy about the definition of Wíterǽden which is
in so far suggestive of an authentic original; and when we translate the
very bad Latin “sine expeditione,” etc. by the genuine “bútan fyrdfare,”
etc., we shall have the following reasonable account to give of the
proceedings. Æðelwulf, being humbled and terrified by the distresses of
wars and the ravages of barbarous and pagan invaders, devised as a
useful remedy thus; he determined to liberate from all those various
exactions and services which went by the general name of wíteræden, the
tenth part of the estates which, though hereditary tenure had grown up
in them, were still subject to the ancient burthens of folcland, whether
they were in the hands of laics or clergy; that where the estate
amounted to ten hides, one was to be free; where it was a very small
quantity, at all events a tenth was to be so enfranchised: and as the
greater part of this land either was in the hands of the clergy, or was
very likely ultimately to come there, he granted this charitable act of
enfranchisement that on these estates the holders might be the better
able to devote themselves to the service of God, all other service being
discharged, except indeed the inevitable three. This seems best to
accord with Asser’s assertion that the king sacrificed to God the
services which arose to himself over a tenth part of all his realm. Now
it is to be observed that this could not apply to booklands which
already possessed an exemption, but only to folcland, whether become
hereditary or not; nor could _regnum_ possibly mean territory, but royal
rights, for Æðelwulf had no _territory_ except his private estates; nor
could the “trinoda necessitas” be called a “regale servitium et
tributum.” These were the dues demandable by the king from folcland, and
could only be discharged by consent of the Wítan. The expression of
Simeon appears also to be susceptible of no other translation: when he
says the king tithed “totum regni sui imperium,” I can see no
territorial division in his words, but only that the king relinquished a
tenth part of those imperial rights which he had as king.
A third class of documents however yet remains to be considered. In
these a clear division of lands is intended and is recorded. The first
of these in point of time are the Nos. 1051 and 1052, which bear the
suspicious dates of Easter in the year 854, the first indiction, and the
palace at Wilton: that is, with the exception of the indiction, the
dates of the first class of documents. These two charters declare that
Æðelwulf being determined by the advice of St. Swithin to tithe the
lands of all the realm that God had given him[993], increased the estate
which queen Friðogyð had granted to the church at Winchester, in
Taunton, by a certain amount of hides in various places. These are
followed by another of the same year, but with the proper indiction,
viz. the second, declaring that on the same occasion he gave other lands
to Winchester[994]; and in the succeeding year 855, we find him giving
an estate in Kent to Dun a minister or thane, “pro decimatione agrorum,
quam Deo donante, caeteris ministris meis facere decrevi.” I do not very
much insist upon giving one sense rather than another to this “_pro_
decimatione,” and am ready to admit that it may mean, ‘in respect of the
general tithing of lands which I intend to make to yourself as well as
the rest of my thanes,’ or that it may be read, ‘in place of that
tithing of lands which I intend to make to the rest of my thanes, I give
you such and such a particular estate.’ We must not be very fastidious
with Æðelwulf’s Latin, especially as there is much reason to believe
that in this case it is a mere translation of what would have been far
more intelligible and trustworthy Saxon.
-----
Footnote 993:
“Totius regni mihi a Deo collati decimans rura.” Nos. 1051, 1052.
Footnote 994:
“Quando decimam partem terrarum per omne regnum meum sanctis
aecclesiis dare decrevi,” etc. No. 1053. The Saxon version, whether it
were the original or only a translation, gives us the true sense of
this assertion: it runs thus:—“ðá ðá he teoðode gynd eall his
cynerice, ðone teoðan dǽl ealra his landa, mid his witena geþeahte,
into hálgum stowum,”—‘when throughout all his realm, he tithed the
tenth of all _his lands_ into holy places, by the counsel of his
witan.’ There was nothing to prevent Æðelwulf from giving a tenth or a
half of all his _own_ lands to whom he pleased.
-----
Trustworthy, however, I can hardly term the last document I have to
notice[995], Saxon though it be: this appears to be one of a very
suspicious series of instruments, prepared for the purpose of
corroborating some ancient claim on the part of Winchester, to have its
hundred hides at Chilcombe rated at _one_ hide only. It bears marks of
forgery in every line, and seems to have been made up out of some
history of Æðelwulf’s sojourn in Rome, but still is worth citing as
evidence of the tradition respecting tithe:—“In the name of him who
writeth in the book of life in heaven those who in this life please him
well, I Æðulf the king in this writ notify concerning the franchise of
Chilcombe, which Kynegils the king, who first of all the kings in Wessex
became a Christian, granted to his baptismal father Saint Birinus; and
which since then all the kings who have succeeded one another in Wessex
have enfranchised and advanced, although it never was reduced to writing
until the time of myself, who am the ninth king. Also I notify that I
established this franchise before Saint Peter in Rome, and the holy Pope
Leo, even so as it was settled between me and all my people, ere I went
to Rome, that is, that all the land comprised in this franchise shall
for ever be acquitted for one hide; because God’s possessions should
ever be more free than any worldly possession: and also my son Ælfred,
who went with me and was there consecrated king, pledged himself to the
Pope, both to further this franchise himself, and to urge his children
to the same, if God should grant him any. I also, before the same Pope,
tithed all the landed possessions which I had in England, to God, into
holy places for myself and for all my people: and in Rome with the
assistance and by the leave of the Pope, I wrought a minster for the
honour of God and to the worship of Saint Mary, his holy mother, and
placed therein a company of English, who ever both by night and day
shall serve God, for our people: and when I returned home I told all the
people what I had done in Rome. And they very earnestly thanked both God
and me for this, and all this pleased them well, and they said that with
their good will it should be so for ever. Now I implore, through the
holy Trinity and Saint Peter, and all the halidome that I visited in
Rome, both for myself and my people, that never either king or prince,
bishop or ealdorman, thane or reeve diminish what hath been established
with such witness: doubtless he that doth so will anger God and Saint
Peter, and all the saints that repose in the churches at Rome, and
miserably earn for himself the punishments of hell. Moreover, the
aforesaid holy Pope Leo laid God’s curse and Saint Peter’s, and all the
Saints’ and his own, on him that ever violates this; and also all this
people both ordained and laic did the like when I returned home and
announced this to them.”
-----
Footnote 995:
Cod. Dipl. No. 1057.
-----
If these data then be correct, Æðelwulf did three distinct things at
different times: he first released from all payments, except the
inevitable three, a tenth part of the folclands or unenfranchised lands,
whether in the tenancy of the church or of his thanes. In this tenth
part of the lands so burthened in his favour he annihilated the royal
rights, regnum or imperium; and as the lands receiving this privilege
were secured by charter, the Chronicle can justly say that the king
_booked_ them to the honour of God. A second thing he did, inasmuch as
he gave a tenth part of his own private estates of bookland to various
thanes or clerical establishments. And lastly, upon every ten hides of
his own land he commanded that one poor man, whether native born or
stranger, that is, whether of Wessex or some other kingdom, should be
maintained in food and clothing. It is unnecessary to waste words in
showing how utterly different all this really is from any grant of
tithe, and how entirely unfounded is the opinion that Æðelwulf made the
first legal enactment in behalf of tithe in this country. All that it
proves is, that Æðelwulf made a handsome endowment for the clergy, and
that a tenth part or a tenth person seemed to him to mark the proper
proportion between what he kept and what he gave up. It renders it
probable that the claim to tithe had already become familiar, since
Æðelwulf divided his land by ten; but it also shows that even the
Levitical tithe itself was misrepresented, if he believed this donation
of his to bear any resemblance to it. We may suppose the squire in a
country parish to have let the parson a house, and subsequently excused
him a tenth of the rent. This might be a very charitable act, and might
be done from very pure religious motives; but it would scarcely be
called tithe in the proper ecclesiastical sense of that word. This is
precisely what Æðelwulf did in Wessex.
In addition to leohtsceat, or money paid to supply lights, sulhælmysse
or plough-alms, and sáwlsceat, a present made to the church where a
testator desired to rest, in consideration of religious services to be
performed for the good of his soul, there was a due commonly known under
the name of cyricsceat. It is not clear what was the nature of this
impost, and its amount is uncertain, as well as the persons who were
liable to its payment. But in all probability it was at first a
recognitory rent paid to the particular churches from estates leased by
them; not so much in the nature of a fair equivalent for the use of such
lands, but as a token of beneficiary tenure, in the spirit of the
following words:—“Solventes inde censum per singulos annos missis
rectorum praedicti monasterii, iv denarios in festivitate sancti Remigii
Confessoris, ne videamur eas ex proprio, sed iure beneficiario
possidere[996].” It is therefore not unusual to find this impost
particularly mentioned in church-leases, under the names of cyricsceat,
census aecclesiasticus, cyriclád, aecclesiae munus, and similar terms.
The true character of the payment appears from two very clear examples
which I shall quote at length. “That in truth may say the thane Ælfsige
Hunláfing in respect to his obtaining this land free from every burthen,
to himself and his heirs, except burhbót, bridge-work, and military
service, remembering to his _landlord_, cyricsceat, sáwlsceat and his
tithes[997].” This landlord was a bishop, in all probability, but he is
not named.
-----
Footnote 996:
Schannat. Tradit. Fuldens. No. 452. So also in the Worcester Domesday,
Hemm. 500, 501. “De eodem manerio tenet Hugo de Grentesmaisnil
dimidiam hidam ad Lapeuuerte, et Baldewinus de eo; et fuit et est de
soca episcopi. De hac terra per singulos annos redduntur viii denarii
ad ecclesiam de Wirecestre, pro _circette_ et recognitione terre.”
Footnote 997:
Cod. Dipl. No. 433.
-----
In the year 902, Denewulf bishop of Winchester leased fifteen hides of
land to Beornwulf and his heirs, reserving a rent of forty-five
shillings yearly. “And every year let him assist in the bót of the
church[998] which that land belongeth to, in the same proportion as the
other folk do, each by the measure of his land; and let him justly pay
his cyricsceat, and perform his military service and bridge and fortress
work, as they do throughout all the folk[999].”
Footnote 998:
Hardly the repairs of the church, which were thus to be attended to
yearly; although in religious as in secular tenures, there can be no
doubt that the tenant was liable to be called upon to assist in the
repairs of the lord’s buildings. The distinction between “ðæt óðer
folc,” that is the other tenants, and “eal folc,” that is everybody
throughout the realm, is clear.
Footnote 999:
“And eác ǽlce geare fultumien tó ðǽre cyrican bote ðe ðet land tó hyrð
be ðém dæle ðe ðet óðer folc dó ǽlc be his landes meðe and ða
cyricsceáttes mid rihte ágyfe and fyrde and brycge and festergeweorc
hewe swá mon ofer eall folc dó.” Cod. Dipl. No. 1079.
-----
Between the years 879 and 909, the same bishop gave forty hides to
Ælfred, for his life. Upon these he reserved a rent of three pounds,
cyricsceats, cyricsceat-work, and the services of Ælfred’s men when
required at the bishop’s hunting and reaping[1000]. In like manner
Oswald reserved, in all the grants he made out of the church property at
Worcester, the church rights, that is to say, cyricsceat, toll, tax and
pannage, and also the services of the tenants at his hunting[1001].
Lastly between the years 871 and 877, bishop Ealhfrið granting eight
hides for three lives to duke Cúðred, reserved bridge-work, military
service, eight cyricsceats, the mass-priest’s rights and
soulsceats[1002].
-----
Footnote 1000:
Cod. Dipl. No. 1086.
Footnote 1001:
See vol. i. p. 518. App. E.
Footnote 1002:
Cod. Dipl. No. 1062.
-----
This cyricsceat then appears to have been originally a recognitory
service due to the lord from the tenant on church-lands. But it is very
clear that in process of time a new character was assumed for it, and it
was claimed of all men alike, as a due to the clergy. Here, again, the
Levitical legislation was taken to be applicable to the Christian
ministry. The Jews had been commanded to give first-fruits[1003], as
well as tithes; and if tithes belonged to the clergy by virtue of God’s
commandment, so did first-fruits also. These appear also to have been
called cyricsceat, and after a time became an established charge upon
the land of the freeman as well as the unfree. The earliest legislation
which we can discover, bearing unquestionably upon this point, is that
of Eádmund toward the middle of the tenth century[1004]; he strictly
commands payment of tithe, cyricsceat, and almsfee, and declares that he
who will not do it shall be excommunicated. By the time of Eádgár
however the matter seems to have been quite settled, and cyricsceat is
directed to be paid from the hearth of every freeman to the old
minster,—most likely to prevent a course similar to the arbitrary
consecration of tithes. And this remained a fixed charge upon the land
till the time of the Conquest, when it ceased to be generally paid, as
we may judge from the expressions of Fleta and other jurists[1005]; it
had passed in some cases into the hands of secular lords, with lands
alienated by the clergy, or taken from them. But in the time of Cnut it
was still paid as _primitiae seminum_, and it is not probable that his
successors altered his arrangements in this respect.
-----
Footnote 1003:
Deut. xviii. 4.
Footnote 1004:
Leg. Eádm. i. § 2. Thorpe, i. 244. The earlier notices are Leg. Ini, §
4, 61. Æðelst. i. Thorpe, i. 104, 140, 196. But these are not at all
conclusive, and would be equally applicable to the case of the
liability to this impost being confined to the tenants of the church.
Ini’s law only regulates the time at which the impost is to be paid,
and the particular estate from which it is due. Æðelstán confines
himself to commanding that his officers shall see the cyricsceat paid
at the proper times and to the proper places.
Footnote 1005:
“Churchesed certam mensuram bladi tritici signat, quam quilibet olim
sanctae Ecclesiae die sancti Martini, tempore tam Britonum quam
Anglorum, contribuerunt. Plures tamen magnates post Normannorum
adventum in Angliam, illam contributionem secundum veterem legem
Moysi, nomine Primitiarum dabant; prout in brevi regis Knuti ad summum
Pontificem transmisso continetur, in quibus illam contributionem
appellant Churchsed, quasi _semen ecclesiae_.” Fleta, i. 47, § 28.
“Chichesed, al. chircheomer, al. chircheambre:—un certein de blé batu
ke checun home devoit au tens de Bretuns e de engleis a le eglise le
iur seint Martin mes pus le venue de Normans si le priserent a lur vs
plusur seinourages, e le donerunt solum la veile lei Moysi, et nomine
primiciarum sicum lem troue en le lettres cnikt ke il envea a rome, e
est dit chirchesed quasi semen ecclesiae.” MS. Soc. Ant. lx. fol. 228,
b. This writ of Cnut to the Pope is not known to me, but we have a
letter addressed by him to his Witan from Rome, to which Fleta
probably alludes. “Nunc igitur præcipio et obtestor omnes meos
episcopos et regni praepositos, per fidem quam Deo et mihi debetis,
quatenus faciatis, ut antequam ego Angliam veniam, omnia debita, quae
Deo secundum legem antiquam debemus, sint soluta, scilicet eleemosynae
pro aratris, et decimae animalium ipsius anni procreatorum, et denarii
quos Romae ad sanctum Petrum debemus, sive ex urbibus sive ex villis,
et mediante Augusto decimae frugum, et in festivitate sancti Martini
_primitiae seminum_ ad ecclesiam sub cuius parochia quisque est, quae
Anglice _Circesceat_ nominantur.” Flor. Wigorn. ad. an. 1031.
-----
The liberality of the Anglosaxons was by no means confined to the grants
of land which they conferred upon the several churches, although it is
impossible to deny that these were most extravagant[1006]. At the same
time it is to be borne in mind that the clergy were always certain to
command a more than adequate supply of free and unfree labour; and that,
if their landed possessions thus increased their wealth to an
extraordinary degree, they also were the greatest contributors to the
general well-being through the superior excellence of their cultivation.
But the piety or the fears of the laity did not stop short at gifts of
land and serfs: jewels, cups, rings, crosses and caskets, money,
tapestry, and vestments, annual foundations of bread, wine, beer, honey,
and flesh, sometimes to enormous amounts, were devised by the will of
wealthy and penitent sinners: houses and curtilages, tolls and markets,
forests, harbours, fisheries, mines, commons of pasture and mast, flocks
and herds of swine, horses and oxen, testified to the liberality of
ealdormen and kings. Nor was the opportunity of investing their surplus
profitably always wanting: more than one mortgage is recorded, on terms
sufficiently favourable to the mortgagors; and loans on excellent
security, show that if the nobles knew where to find capitalists in
their need, the capitalist also knew very well how to turn his
facilities to good account. The necessity of providing out of these
large funds for the proper maintenance of the churches and the due
celebration of religious rites, can hardly be looked upon as a great
hardship; and although the demands of charity and the duties of
hospitality, may have seemed a heavy charge to the avaricious or the
selfish, we cannot but conclude, that no class of the community occupied
so dignified or so easy a position as the Anglosaxon clergy. The State,
fully aware of the value of their services, was not niggardly in
rewarding them. There was a ready acquiescence on the part of the laity
in the claims of the clergy to respect and trust; and, while these
continued to maintain a decent conformity to the duties of their
calling, we find a perfectly harmonious co-operation of all classes in
the church. Nor, amongst all the writings which the clergy—the only
writers—have left us, do we find any of those complaints and grievances,
which are apt to be made prominent enough when the members of that
powerful body believe their pretensions to be treated with less than due
consideration. The devoted partizan of Rome might choose to declare the
English church subject to such bondage as no other suffered; but, except
from quarrels of their own, the clergy never were exposed here to those
inconveniences which are unavoidable, upon any attempt on their part to
separate themselves from their fellow-members in the Christian
communion.
-----
Footnote 1006:
The estate of Chilcombe alone, belonging to Winchester, is reckoned at
one hundred hides, or at least three thousand acres, which they
succeeded in getting rated to the public burthens at one hide only.
Cod. Dipl. No. 642. But the whole of their estates in Hampshire appear
from the same document to have comprised no less than five hundred and
seventy-eight hides, which at my very low estimate of the hide amount
to _seventeen thousand, three hundred and forty acres_,—a very pretty
provision for one Chapter. The amount of lands and chattels devised by
various prelates almost exceeds belief.
-----